Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1349/2015

Ashe Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Country Club - Opp.Party(s)

Smt.Anjana Jindal

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                          

                                                Complaint No.  1349

                                                Instituted on:    19.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       31.08.2016

 

1.Ashe Kumar Goyal @ Ashi Goyal, Advocate son of Shri A.R.Goyal, Chamber No.206, District Courts, Sangrur (Punjab) 148 001.

2.Ashish Kumar, Advocate son of Shri Ram Lal Garg, Chamber No.220, District Courts, Sangrur (Punjab) 148 001.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     M/s. Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. Registered Office: Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifbad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 063 through its Chairman and Managing Director Y. Rajeev Reddy.

2.     Y.Rajeev Reddy, Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. Registered Office: Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifbad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 063.

3.     R. Ramakrishna (Manager Administration) son of Shri Satya Naryana M/s. Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. Registered Office: Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifbad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 063.

4.     Shekhar Chaudhary (Marketing Executive) M/s. Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. Registered Office: Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifbad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 063.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Ms.Anjana Jindal, Adv.

For OPs                   :       Shri Amandeep Singh, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President:

 

1.             Sarvshri Ashe Kumar Goyal and Ashish Kumar, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 14.6.2015, the complainant number 1 received an invitation call on his mobile from Mr. Amit Sharma, who invited the complainant number 1 at Hotel KT Royal at Sangrur for presentation and information about benefits of Membership of Country Club and as such, the complainant number 1 along with his wife and friend Mr. Ashish Kumar Advocate went to the Hotel KT Royal Sangrur to attend the representation provided by OP number 4.  Further case of the complainant is that OP number 4 allured the complainants for purchase of joint membership of the company/OPs, as such, the complainants agreed to purchase the same and paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- i.e. Rs.1,10,000/- through the credit card of the complainant number 1 and the remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- from the debit card of the complainant number 2 to the OPs and further the OPs assured that the complainants would get three air tickets absolutely free worth Rs.15,000/-. It is further averred that the complainant number 1 had signed as applicant and complainant number 2 as co-applicant, respectively on the application form, which is in possession of the OPs. It is further averred that the OPs had issued membership number CCDL61CLUB30LB22045 to the complainant number 1 only against the receipt of payment of Rs.1,75,000/- and also issued two vouchers as free air tickets instead of three as agreed upon. Further case of the complainant is that the OPs issued the membership in the name of the complainant number 1 only and complainant number 2 was not made the co-applicant. Further case of the complainant is that the above said agreement has been shown to be executed on 26.6.2015 at Hyderabad, whereas the complainant never visited Hyderabad for the execution of the said agreement. It is stated that the copies of the above blank agreement were got signed from the complainant number 1 by OP number 4 at Sangrur on 14.6.2015. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops have not acted as agreed upon with the complainants, as such, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the deposited amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, but of no avail.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to issue membership of the company in the name of both the complainants and one air ticket or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant number 2 is not a consumer within the meaning of the term as defined under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act as he is not a party in the contract. The complainant number 1 has wrongly trying to add complainant number 2 to the benefits under the membership owned by him merely because partial payment of Rs.65,000/- out of Rs.1,75,000/- was made by the complainant number 2, whereas the complainant gave an undertaking that he was making payment on behalf of the complainant number 1, that the disputed questions of facts are involved in the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that no cause of action arose to the complainant number 1 against the Ops and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is denied that both the complainants who are friends can jointly purchase the membership against the payment of Rs.1,75,000/- as membership fee. It is stated further that the complainant was well informed that the membership is valid for one family as detailed in clause 2 of the Club Membership agreement, which is valid for one year, which is renewable on payment of the annual maintenance charges.  It is further denied that anybody informed the complainant that he can avail stay in any 5 or 7 start hotel, if he does not wish to stay in the property of the OPs. It is submitted that agreement bears the dated 26.6.2015 i.e. the date when it was accepted by OP number 1 i.e. corporate office at Hyderabad and was franked at Hyderabad.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 copies of account statement, Ex.C-3 copy of payment detail, Ex.C-4 copy of purchase agreement, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 copies of emails, Ex.C-9 copy of representation, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-14 copies of emails, Ex.C-15 copy of complaint, Ex.C-16 copy of email, Ex.C-17 copy of complaint, Ex.C-18 and Ex.C-19 copies of membership details, Ex.C-20 copy of email, Ex.C-21 copy of holiday gift voucher, Ex.C-23 and Ex.C-24 affidavits, Ex.C-25 and Ex.C-26 copies of emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit along with annexure Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that on 14.6.2015, the complainant number 1 received an invitation call on his mobile from Mr. Amit Sharma representative of the OPs, who invited the complainant number 1 at Hotel KT Royal at Sangrur for presentation and information about benefits of Membership of Country Club.  Accordingly, the complainant number 1 along with his wife and friend Mr. Ashish Kumar Advocate visited  to the Hotel KT Royal Sangrur to attend the representation provided by OP number 4.  It is further contended vehemently by the learned counsel for the complainant that  OP number 4 allured the complainants by his representation for purchase of joint membership of the company, as such, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- i.e. Rs.1,10,000/- through the credit card of the complainant number 1 and the remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- from the debit card of the complainant number 2 to the OPs, which is not disputed by the Ops and further the OPs assured that the complainants would get three air tickets absolutely free worth Rs.15,000/-. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainants that the complainant number 1 had signed as applicant and complainant number 2 as co-applicant, respectively on the application form, which is in possession of the OPs. It is further contended that the OPs issued membership number CCDL61CLUB30LB22045 to the complainant number 1 only against the receipt of payment of Rs.1,75,000/- and further issued two vouchers as free air tickets instead of three as agreed upon, but the complainant number 2 namely Ashish Kumar was not shown as co-applicant.  As such, the complainant has sought a direction against the Ops to issue membership of the company in the name of both the complainants and one air ticket or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum along with compensation and litigation expenses.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complainant number 2 is not a consumer within the meaning of the term as defined under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act as he is not a party in the contract. The complainant number 1 has wrongly trying to add complainant number 2 to the benefits under the membership owned by him merely because partial payment of Rs.65,000/- out of Rs.1,75,000/- was made by the complainant number 2, whereas the complainant gave an undertaking that he was making payment on behalf of the complainant number 1 and that the disputed questions of facts are involved in the present complaint and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs. Further the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainants who are friends can not jointly purchase the membership against the payment of Rs.1,75,000/- as membership fee. It is stated further that the complainant was well informed that the membership is valid for one family as detailed in clause 2 of the Club Membership agreement, which is valid for one year, which is renewable on payment of the annual maintenance charges.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that nobody informed the complainant that he can avail stay in any 5 or 7 start hotel, if he does not wish to stay in the property of the OPs. It is submitted that agreement bears the dated 26.6.2015 i.e. the date when it was accepted by OP number 1 i.e. corporate office at Hyderabad and was franked at Hyderabad.   Lastly, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complaint being false, frivolous should be dismissed with special costs.

 

6.             After bare perusal of the complaint, written reply as well as evidence produced on record and hearing the arguments, we find that it is an admitted fact that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to OPs through OP number 3 i.e. an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was paid from the account of the complainant number 1 and remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- was made from the account of the complainant number 2, as is evident from the copies of the bank statements Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 on record, but the Ops issued the membership in the name of the complainant number 1 only.  Further Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are the copies of club membership purchase agreement and vacations agreement, which are only in the name of complainant number 1 i.e. Shri Ashe Kumar Goyal and the name of the complainant number 2 has not been mentioned on it, despite the fact that the complainant approached the Ops so many times to do so by sending the emails, copies of which are on record as Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-15, Ex.C-17.  It is an admitted fact that whole of the transactions took place here at KT Royal Hotel Sangrur, where the Ops organised a presentation for information about the benefits of the Membership of Country Club through OP number 2, but no affidavit of Shekhar Chaudhary has been produced on the file by the Ops. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not produce the same to deny the allegations of the complainants. The OPs had filed two affidavits Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 on record of Shri Bharat Reddy, Legal Officer of the OPs to support the allegations of the complainant, as such his affidavit is not at all helpful to the case of the OPs as he has not deposed about the correctness of the facts and transactions done between the complainants and the OPs. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that in the application form for purchase of membership produced by the Ops, why the Ops have mentioned the name of Jasmine as one of the dependent, who is the daughter of complainant number 2. Further we are unable to go with the version of the OPs that the amount deposited by the complainants is non refundable, as the complainants had deposited the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- for getting the membership as applicant and co-applicants, but since the Ops have not provided the same to the complainants.  If the Ops were unable to do so, then the Ops should not accept the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from both the complainants i.e. Sarshri Ashe Kumar Goyal and Ashish Kumar.  In the circumstances, we feel that the Ops have miserably failed to provide the joint membership in the name of both the complainants.  Without going further on the merits of the case, we  find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

7.             Further admittedly, the OPs have received an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from the complainants for providing the membership, but no membership in the name of both the complainants have been provided, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are liable to refund to the complainants the amount so deposited by them with the OPs.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund to the complainants an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.10.2015 till realisation. The OPs are  further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 31, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member