Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/409/2022

Rubi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Panoramic Holidays Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	409/2022
Date of Institution	:	06.05.2022
Date of Decision	:	07.11.2023

 

                     

            

 

Rubi w/o Sh.Shellender Singh r/o H.No.1821-F, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

M/s Panoramic Holidays Ltd. (Magic Holidays), Khatau House Basement, Mogul Lane, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400016.

 

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Shellender, Authorized Representative of the complainant Sh.Sandeep Pawar, Counsel for OP.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that in the meeting held on 31.12.2017, the sales officers of the OPs allured to the complainant to take the holiday package wherein the OP promised to provide accommodation for 39 Nights stay for 3 adults for five years at almost all tourist places in India, five star with all facilities.  Being allured by the said promises, the complainant took the Magic Holiday Scheme Membership of the OP vide application dated 31.12.2017(Annexure C-2), by paying Rs.71,484/- through digital transaction.  On 17.01.2018  an email (Annexure C-3) was received conveying the membership details wherein the OP stated that they provided vacations in more than 90 properties at 45 Locations in India. Only 37 night stays for plan tenure of five years were mentioned against the promised 39 night stays at the time of selling the scheme. The complainant requested the OP for room booking at Agra but vide e-mail dated 20.03.2018(Annexure C-4), the OP informed that they tried for Agra but the same is sold out.  The complainant requested the OP to provide the booking at Amritsar but the same was also denied. In April, 2018, the complainant requested for booking over phone for accommodation at any hill station where the OP could arrange during the summer vacations falling in the month of June, 2018 but the request was also declined vide email dated 25.04.2018 ((Annexure C-5). Finally, the complainant vide e-mail dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure C-6) requested the OP to refund the deposited amount. Subsequently, the OP vide e-mail dated 27.04.2018 informed that they are unable to process the reservation booking request for month of May and June, 2018 and requested the complainant to forward his future booking dates for upcoming months from July, 2018 onwards. But the complainant again vide email dated 28.04.2018 requested the OP for refund of the amount and even met the Branch head at Chandigarh in this regard.  As advised, he also wrote an email dated 30.04.2018 to the Chandigarh Branch Head as well as Mumbai office of the OP in this regard but to no effect. Vide e-mail dated 26.06.2018,  the OP admitted that it failed to honour the holiday request dates due to high demand and over booking for the month of May and June, 2018 where vide email dated 25.04.2018, the OP conveyed that due to technical difficulties they are unable to provide the booking for the next 2 months. Ultimately, the complainant got served the OP with the legal notice dated 19.04.2022 which was received back with remarks “refused”.  The complainant sent the legal notice at the email address and the OP vide  reply dated 28.04.2022 refused to refund the amount. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OP to refund the deposited amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon the OP, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version stating therein that OP is providing time share holidays at its affiliated resorts and hotels to its members under its various schemes. It has further been stated that after knowing the scheme properly, the complainant took a 5 years Flexi5-Reg-White Studio Membership from the OP at a price of Rs.77,700/- and as welcome benefit, the OP gave cash back of Rs.6216/- to him. It has further been stated that the complainant is a literate and educated person and had signed the contract with open eyes and no one took 5 years membership worth Rs.71,484/- for 35 nights stay, gives declarations, without knowing for what purpose she is giving the same. As per the membership rules, the complainant was to give booking request minimum 15 days prior to check in dates and she put booking requests at a very short notice and by that time resorts were allotted to other customers.  It has further been stated that the paid amount is non-refundable and in case anyone cancels the membership then the same has to be done within the look-in-period and not after the look in period of 10 days. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
4.     We have heard the Authorized Representative of the complainant, Counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record.
5.     From the perusal of the documents on record, it is established that the complainant took the membership of the OP by paying a sum of Rs.71,484/- through digital transaction under one of its schemes.  It is also established from the e-mails exchanged between the parties that the complainant tried from time to time to avail the services of the OP and made requests to the OP to book the destinations but the same were declined/rejected by the OP on one or the other ground.  It is, thus, observed that the OP who has failed to render the promised services to the complainant has got no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainant and even they cannot be allowed to take the shelter of the terms and conditions of the agreement which are one sided. The complainant has sought refund of the amount only after facing a lot of inconvenience and embarrassment due to the act and conduct of the OP.
6.           In view of above discussion, present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of Rs.71,484/- along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 17.01.2018 till its realization;
2. to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

7.           This order be complied with by the OP within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
8.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
9.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 07/11/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER