Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/990/2019

Mrs. Meenu Kakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vaqam Holidays & resorts Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

23 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/990/2019
Date of Institution	:	07/10/2019
Date of Decision	:	23/05/2022

 

1. Mrs. Meenu Kakkar w/o Gagan Kakkar, #147, Mayur Vihar, Sector 48A, Chandigarh.
2. Mr. Gagan Kakkar s/o Sh. K.N. Kakkar, #147, Mayur Vihar, Sector 48A, Chandigarh.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

M/s Vaqam Holidays & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., #420, 38 Ansal Tower, Nehru Palace, New Delhi 110019.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainants
	:	OP ex-parte

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, complainants were approached by executives of OP and apprised about vacation club plans which included membership of many resorts all over India and abroad, club facilities, vouchers, extra vouchers for 6 nights/7 days of vacation and many other verbal assurances. Allured by their sweet words, complainants booked vacation plan namely “10 Years Gold Studio” on payment of ₹1,60,950/-. As enrolment offer, OPs gave 4 nights/5 days Dubai stay with breakfast plus 4 air tickets but the validity was said to be after 2 years. OP sent a demand of ₹8,260/- as maintenance payment for the year 2018, though the annual subscription fee was to become due only after one year of grant of membership. The complainants kept on approaching the OP to give the holiday package, but, the OP practically declined the entitlement of the complainants. The complainants even tried to get booking for a holiday travel in 2019, but to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     Upon notice, initially Sh. Jaipal Singh Tariyal, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the OP, filed his vakalatnama and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence. However, subsequently neither reply and evidence were filed nor anybody put in appearance on behalf of the OP, therefore, vide order dated 18.11.2020, OP was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have gone through the record of the case.
5.     It is evident from Annexure C-1, copy of the Member Application Form that the complainants approached OP for availing its services in the form of holiday vacation plan for which the complainants had paid the amount of ₹1,60,950/- vide receipt dated 25.11.2018 (Annexure C-2).  Thereafter Annexure C-6 dated 10.12.2018 is the welcome letter by the OP with the mention of plan tendered as “10 year Gold Studio”, price of the VHI Club Scheme as ₹1,60,950/- and date of enrolment 25.11.2018. 
6.     It is worth noting that the OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. 
7.     The sole grouse of the complainants is that neither any kind of service was provided by the OP till date nor it refunded the amount in question despite request. As per welcome letter, all booking request must be given three months to two days prior to the check in date and booking is subject to availability and eligibility as per the membership type and apartment selected.  In the present case, the complainants requested the OP for availing the services well within time, but, the OP failed to provide the same.  Hence, the act of the OP for neither providing proper services nor refunding the amount and most importantly non appearing during the proceedings of the present case proves deficiency in service on its part.  As such, the complainants are entitled to refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation for the harassment undergone by them.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹1,60,950/- to the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 25.11.2018 till realisation.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
3. to pay ₹5,000 to the complainants as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/05/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member