DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No.257 of 05-08-2022

Decided on : 05-06-2024

Purshotam Bansal aged about 67 years S/o Dhani Ram 16800, St.No.5/1, Basant Vihar, Bhatinda (PB).

........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd., K-28, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110024, through Company's Managing Director/Authorized Person for such cases.

    

2. Managing Director of Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd., K-28, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110024, Present Managing Director Anuj Pandit.

    

3. Branch Head of Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd., K-28, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110024.

    

4. Visiting Consultant, through Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd., K-28, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110024.

    

5. Officer Manager, through Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd., K-28, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-110024.

    

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Smt. Priti Malhotra, President

Smt. Sharda Attri, Member

Present :

Complainant : Sh.Purshotam Bansal in person.

For opposite parties : Sh.G.S Dandiwal, for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite party Nos.3 to 5 ex-parte.

ORDER

Priti Malhotra, President

1. The complainant Purshotam Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against M/s Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd and Others ( here-in-after referred to as opposite parties ).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 6.8.2020 at noon, a call was received at his mobile and caller Ms.Tanaya told him that the Signature Company is celebrating its 25^th Anniversary and name of his family has been chosen from the list of members of Dunes Club Bhatinda and she invited him with his wife at Hotel Melody Near Mittal Mall, Bhatinda for dinner. The complainant along with his wife reached at Melody Hotel, Bhatinda at 7:30 P.M and Ms.Tanya greeted them at hotel reception. She started talking about the company's camp at Bhatinda. She showed some tour plans and holiday packages for 12 years etc. and made lucrative offers for holiday plan etc. and offered a plan of Rs.70,000/- for 6 nights 7 days at choice hotels for next 12 years plus one all India tour of 6 night 7 days for an air fare for Rs.8500/- and one night stays at Corbett Park. The complainant was not get allured with the offer, but she called her senior Mr.Abhishek Verma, he offered more discount on the offer of Rs.70,000/- and told that he can arrange this package at Rs.50,000/- in case the complainant books the package just now.

3. It is alleged that on the insistence and substantial discount, complainant's wife agreed to take the package and Mr.Abhishek Verma compelled to make an initial payment of Rs.22,500/- on spot. The complainant made the payment of Rs.22,500/- from his bank account of State Bank of India through his mobile

4. It is further alleged that on next day, Mr.Abhishek Verma came in the office of son of the complainante near Pukhraj Cinema, Bhatti Road, Bhatinda and asked for remaining Rs.27,500/-. He brought with him a printed form of terms and conditions, the complainant read the same and told that it is nothing and what the conditions that was told on yesterday night will be applicable. To assure the complainant, Mr.Abhishek Verma wrote that 'Total payment received Rs.50,000/- and nothing is remained pending except Rs.8500/- that is payable by the member at the time of availing all India tour with Air ticket (To & fro) that includes breakfast and Dinner'. In this regard, he sent an e-mail from the office.

5. It is further alleged that the complainant asked Mr.Verma about his choices of Hotel at Chandigarh and Delhi as it is not in their list of hotels managed by the company whereas being an elderly person, it is difficult for them to plan every year for distant places and they require to visit Chandigarh and Delhi more frequently. Mr.Verma told the complainant that he has 18000 nights at his disposal and he will arrange hotel for their stay at Chandigarh or Delhi within the limits of yearly hotel stay provided in their package. The complainant asked Mr.Verma to give this also in writing. He immediately got booked one day stay at Zirakpur to show his words/authority. On getting such assurance, the complainant paid remaining Rs.27,500/- through State Bank of India account.

6. It is further alleged that on 10.9.2020, the complainant requested for one-night hotel booking at Zirakpur for 22.9.2020 through his app and also requested Mr.Abhishek Verma for the same. Mr.Verma told that the booking will be confirmed in next 2-3 days and thereafter he stopped attending his calls. The complainant contacted Mr.Tondon, Ms. Anjali and Ms.Payal at different time on CO's landline number for confirmation of booking and first, they assured that the booking will be confirmed shortly and at the last on 22.9.2020 (morning), they told that the choice hotel at Zirakpur is fully occupied and booking is not possible.

7. It is further alleged that the complainant booked the hotel that was told to be fully occupied and sent the bill of hotel for reimbursement vide e-mail dated 24.9.2020 as they have not booked the hotel on flimsy ground. The company took another stand that the Zirakpur is not in the list of hotels maintained by it and booking requires 30 days prior notice.

8. It is further alleged that the complainant sent several e-mails for deficiency in service of opposite parties as promised vide e-mail dated 21.9.2020, 22.9.2020, 24.9.2020, 25.9.2020, 1.10.2020, 7.10.2020, 8.10.2020, 12.10.2020 and 14.10.2020, but no satisfactory reply was given

9. It is further alleged that during 2021, the complainant again tried to get booking for hotel stay, but Mr.Chandan or Ms.Punam (Co's Manager) refused booking over phone due to non-working of their booking due to Covid conditions. Though, his family members made a plan to visit outstation as Covid situation has improved in 2021 and they visited Macleod-Ganj in the first week of July 2021 and made an expenditure of Rs.10,000/- on hotel stay that otherwise have to be saved in case, opposite parties arrange the hotel booking that was envisaged by the complainant for which, he has paid them Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, the complainant requested over phone to provide hotel booking to opposite parties in the month of April 2022 for Kashmir for his family visit, but they again denied over phone with the plea of AMC etc. and his family visited Kashmir in April 2022 and spent about Rs.20,000/- for hotel stay that could be saved in case, they arrange hotel stay for which they had booked and taken Rs.50,000/-.

10. It is further alleged that again on 18.7.2022, the complainant requested for one-night booking for 24.7.2022 at Zirakpur vide his e-mail. On the same date, the company sent e-mail that they are arranging booking at CHD and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.20,060/- (Rs.8500+GST) as AMC for 2021 and 2022. the complainant protested the company for their wrong demand and commitment and non-fulfillment of promised service vide e-mail dated 19.7.2022 and 22.7.2022. On 22.7.2022, they stated that simply the verbal/handwritten commitment made by their representative is not valid. The complainant refuted their wrong stand taken for denial of hotel booking vide e-mail on 24.7.2022 and 29.7.2022. In the e-mail dated 29.7.2022, the complainant informed the company that the promise made by its representative was also affirmed by it vide e-mail dated 7.8.2020, but the company has not replied till date.

    On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the booking amount of Rs.50,000/- plus interest from 7.8.2020 till the date of payment and to fulfillment of their promised booking for providing hotel booking at choiced location all over india and Chandigarh and Delhi without payment of AMC of Rs.8500/- till he availed their services of all India tour of (6N/7D) with both way air fare on payment of Rs.8500/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

11. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is totally misconceived and legally not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is the abuse of the process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint with malafide intention to harass and blackmail opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant entered into an agreement dated 6.8.2020 after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement. Now, the complainant wanted to back out from the agreement without any justifiable reasons. The agreement dated 6.8.2020 was executed by both the parties and in this agreement clearly mentioned that any hand written text/overwriting/correction is not valid. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and deliberately and willfully suppressed the material facts from this Forum. He is guilty of suppressing the facts of the complaint. The complaint involves intricate question of law and facts, plethora of records to be introduced and number of witnesses to be examined to decide the allegations in just and fair manner. As such, this Forum is not an appropriate platform to adjudicate upon the present subject matter. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. The complaint is without any cause-of-action. It does not disclose any cause-of-action against opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As such, it is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

12. On merits, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have denied the averments of the complainant and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.3 to 5. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

14. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his two affidavits dated 5.8.2022 and 14.6.2023 (Ex.C9 and Ex.C10) and documents, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C8).

15. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Anuj Pandit dated 14.9.2022, (Ex.OP1/1) and documents, (Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/7).

16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully.

17. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above.

18. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

19. Admittedly, the complainant availed tour plan/holiday package of opposite parties and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- for 6 nights 7 days at choice hotels for next 12 years plus one all India tour of 6 night 7 days for an air fare for Rs.8500/- and one night stay at Corbett Park. Payment receipts, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C5) prove this fact.

20. The main controversy involved in this case is that after availing tour plan/holiday packages of opposite parties, the complainant tried to make bookings through opposite parties under membership in question, but he failed to get positive response from them and evidently, he has to make his arrangement on his own and had to pay money from his own pocket while he and his family stayed at Zirakpur and Kashmir etc. From the record, it transpires that opposite parties failed to provide the due services under membership in question, which frustrated the whole contract of membership entered into between the parties. It amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Thus, the complainant has rightly claimed for the refund of his amount i.e. Rs.50,000/-.

21. In view of what has been discussed above, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

22. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

23. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite parties will be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.7000/- to the complainant.

24. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

25. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced

    05-06-2024

    1. (Priti Malhotra)

    President

     

     

    (Sharda Attri)

    Member