DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. No.245/2021
| Smt. Jyoti Madhok W/o Shri Ramat Madhok R/o. 645-A, 2nd Floor, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092. | ….Complainants |
Versus |
| Shri Abhishek Gautam Director of M/s. Club Resorto Hospitality Ltd. Shri Aditya Kumar Panday Director of M/s. Club Resorto Hospitality Ltd. Office At: 425, 4th Floor, Qutab Plaza, DLF Phase – 1, Gurgaon – 122002. | ……OP |
Date of Institution: 25.07.2021
Judgment Reserved on: 25.04.2024
Judgment Passed on: 25.04.2024
QUORUM:
Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member) on Leave
Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)
Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)
JUDGMENT
By this judgment the Commission would dispose of the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in service in not refunding the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid to it.
- Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that OP approached her through their agent and invited to attend the seminar in Hotel Crown Plaza, Mayur Vihar where OP made several commitments and promises with respect to providing holiday packages for becoming a member of OP and one of the package for 25 years having cost of Rs.3,00,000/- was offered to the complainant for Rs.2,20,000/- which package was for the entire family including spouse and children. The OP had promised to provide international holiday package for entire family for 03 night and 04 days, including meal as well as air fare and accommodation in Five Star hotel and even promised that amount of Rs.2,20,000/- would be converted into 24 EMIs. The amount Rs.2,20,000/- were paid but OP did not keep their promises and commitments and even the amount Rs.2,20,000/- was not converted into instalments and accordingly complainant approached the OP and requested it to settle the matter and return the Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant and OP then settled the matter and told the complainant that it would return the amount by way of payment to be made to the credit card agency directly but with the condition, that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would be deposited by the complainant in the account of the OPs being surety amount. The complainant deposited the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through credit card of her husband Shri Ramat Madhok and in view thereof the OPs returned the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- directly to the credit card for of the complainant in HDFC Account but the respondent has not returned the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which he assured that he would return the same in 24 equal instalments. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was taken by OPs to harass the complainant, grab her money and to give the face to their illegal way to grab the amount and putting the complainant under coercion and pressure due to which the complainant has already paid penalties and therefore OPs are liable to return the this amount which the OPs did not return and accordingly, she served legal notice upon the OPs thereby demanding Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @18% per annum, Rs.20,000/- damages and litigation charges, which legal notice had not been complied with by OPs and therefore complainant has filed the present complaint claiming the refund of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith damages of Rs.20,000/- and litigation of Rs.22,000/-.
Initially the complainant was filed against 04 OPs but OP3 and OP4 were subsequently deleted from the array of parties and present complaint is only against OP1 and OP2 who had not appeared despite service and as such OP1 and OP2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2022. The complainant has filed her evidence alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and thereafter the Commission has heard arguments. The Commission is not in position to appreciate the version of OPs, they being ex-parte and therefore the version of the complainant is the only material before this Commission to appreciate.
The complaint case runs into two parts, one for taking services of a vacation package of 25 years and complainant has paid Rs.2,20,000/- to the OPs for the same. Certain promises were made by the OPs which were not fulfilled and complainant then made a request for refund of the money. Before refunding the money the OPs put a condition for depositing Rs.1,00,000/- and told the complainant that only thereafter Rs.2,20,000/- would be returned. The Complainant agreed to the same, deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the OPs and OPs then have refunded the amount Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant which were towards the package of vacation/holidays. That first part of the complainant is over i.e. OP promised to provide services, it did not provide those services, amount was sought back by complainant and amount was returned however subject to conditions of depositing Rs.1,00,000/- as surety.
The second part is claiming back of Rs.1,00,000/- which has been paid by complainant to the OPs as surety. This Rs.1,00,000/- as per the pleading has not been paid by the complainant to the OPs for availing any services of the OPs, rather it was only an amount given to OPs for surety and therefore the Commission enquired from Ld. Counsel for the complainant as to what services were required to be provided by the OPs for the second part of the transaction and as to how the complainant is a consumer/service seeker for Rs.1,00,000/- and how OPs are the service provider for such payment to which Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that it was part of the same transaction. In fact complainant has not been able to bring any document on record or any arguments so as to prove that she is a consumer of OPs for such payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. The prayer clause of the complainant is also that OP be directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- without alleging as to how there was any deficiency with respect to any services or proposed service to be provided for Rs.1,00,000/-. Even if the prayer clause is read there is no mention of any deficiency with respect to Rs.1,00,000/- against the OP.
Any of the prayers do not co-relates with any deficiency in service by OP. Therefore the Commission is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which is being sought by the complainant is only for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- and not against any services to be provided by the OP nor she has been able to prove that there was any deficiency of service on the part of OP with respect to this amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
Copy of the Judgment be supplied/sent to all the parties free of cost as per rules.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced on 25.04.2024.