Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/90/2019

Ajay Singh Praveen - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s World Travel Arc - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Apr 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	90 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	03.05.2019
Date of Order	:	19.04.2021

 

1]  Ajay Singh Praveen s/o Satish Kumar Praveen, R/o H.No.197-GF, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh (UT)

 

2]  Shikha Ahuja w/o Dr.Ajay Singh Praveen, R/o H.No.197GF, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh (UT)

                                                          …..Appellants /Complainants.

Versus

1]  World Travel Arc, through its authorised signatory, Working from Conference Hall, Hotel James, Block No.10, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. 

2]  Vineet Manchanda, Director, World Travel Arc, Registered Office: SCF 45, 2nd Floor, Phase-9, Mohali. 

3]  Dinesh Kumar, Unit Manager, World Travel Arc. Office: Conference Hall, James Hotel Block No.10, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.  

                                        …Respondents /Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. Avinash Kumar, Advocate for the appellants

Sh. Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.03.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (now District Commission), UT, Chandigarh, vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.274 of 2018.

2.            In the complaint case before the Forum (now District Commission) the only allegation leveled by the complainants that they selected a package from the Opposite Parties, in which, they promised to provide holiday experience for 10 years, which included domestic as well as international hotels each year consisting of 7 nights and the cost negotiated was Rs.1,60,000/-. The complainants told the Opposite Parties that they intend to visit Dubai in November, 2017 and thus want to avail international package on which they promised an enrolment gift of fully paid holiday for a couple in Goa for 3 nights (Annexure C-1).  The complainants made the payment of Rs.95,000/- on 02.06.2017 & 05.06.2017 and availed the holiday package facility by booking 2 room nights in Coorg, Karnataka on 01.07.2017 and 2 room nights in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand on 08.07.2017. The complainants visited the Opposite Parties for making balance payment and for booking of room for Dubai, which they denied and stated that the amount paid by them have been adjusted for 5 years package, vide which, facility of domestic hotels could be availed, whereas, the complainants opted for 10 years package, which included international and domestic hotels.  Ultimately, the complainants sent email dated 10.09.2017 to the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the Agreement seeking refund of the amount but to no avail. 

3.                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

4.                We have gone through the record of the case and heard Counsel for the parties.

5.          Counsel for the appellants/complainants has submitted that the complainants subscribed for a 10 years plan including domestic and international vacations on 02.06.2017 costing Rs.1,60,000/- and paid the initial amount of Rs.95,000/- with a promise to pay the balance amount within three months. They further submitted that the complainants received email dated 13.06.2017, in which, duration of five years was mentioned, which was objected to by the complainants and the Opposite Parties assured to increase the duration when they make the balance payment. He further submitted that in Annexure C-1, there was no mention of “domestic only”. He admitted regarding availing four night stay at Coorg and Mussorrie on 01.07.2017 and 08.07.2017, out of 35 nights in the plan. He further submitted that the complainants requested the Opposite Parties to book a hotel in Dubai vide email dated 06.08.2017 but when no reply was received, they started calling and visited the office of Opposite Parties, to which, they were told that they were allotted a lower plan with domestic vacations and forcefully made cutting and overwriting on the application form on 15.09.2017. He further prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal filed by the complainants.
6.                On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties has submitted that the Forum (District Commission) has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainants.

7.                After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

8.                It is the admitted fact that the complainants became member of the Opposite Parties and paid Rs.95,000/-. It is also the admitted fact that the complainants availed holiday package by booking 2 room nights in Coorg, Karnataka on 01.07.2017 and thereafter 2 room nights in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand on 08.07.2017.

9.                The first point for consideration before us is as to whether the complainants opted 10 years package or not. Perusal of Exhibit C-1 shows that the complainants opted Type of Membership – “Gold” of “5 years” and paid Rs.95,000/- and apart from this Annual Service Charges of Rs.3000/- every year was also mentioned. Even in the written arguments filed by the respondents/Opposite Parties, it has been clearly mentioned that initially the complainants opted for a plan of 10 years and at that time, the appellants were told that with this plan they would be getting an enrollment gift of a fully paid holiday in Goa for 3 nights for a couple on making the full payment for the plan i.e. Rs.1,60,000/-. They further stated thereafter at the time of making the payment, the appellants changed their mind and asked the Opposite Parties to change the plan to that of Gold Club ownership plan amounting to Rs.95,000/-, which included 7 nights for one room (two adults and two kids upto 12 years) for 3 star to 4 star category hotels) per annum for 5 years and apart from this Annual Service Charges of Rs.3000/- per annum, as such, all the necessary changes were made in the presence of the complainants on the application form (Exhibit C-1) by the complainant himself and the same was duly signed by him. It was denied that the complainants ever promised to pay the balance amount later. Not only this, after receipt of amount of Rs.95,000/- from the complainants, the Opposite Parties sent confirmation letter through email on 13.06.2017 mentioning therein all the details of the package/plan taken by the complainants. Even there is no policy with the Opposite Parties to provide for enrollment gift on the upgrading of the plan and this gift is to be given at the time of enrollment and that too after making full and final payment. Moreover, the complainants failed to place on record any document to prove that they booked the package of 10 years instead of 5 years. So, there is no force in the plea taken by the appellants/complainants and the same stands rejected.

10.              With regard to refund of the amount vide email dated 10.09.2017 by the complainant is concerned, as per Clause 6.1 of the Agreement (as mentioned in the written arguments of respondents), it has specifically mentioned under the head of Membership Cancellation head that “Recession Period/Refund option :-

“Withdrawal of application of WTC shall be permitted within the recession period, which is 10 days from the date of enrollment of membership with the realization of down payment as per structured payment plan with proper request given in written or through mail. In this event refund shall be processed with deduction of administrative charges/bank charges of minimum 5% on the down payment done at the time of enrollment. Refund will be processed in the name of main applicant.”

1. In the event of withdrawal of the application by an applicant beyond 10 days from the date of enrollment the applicant shall not be eligible for any refund of the amount paid by him.”

From the afore-extracted para, it is crystal clear that the complainants are not entitled for any refund of the membership fees.

11.              Even perusal of the file shows that in terms of the directions of this Commission, Sh.Dinesh Kumar, Unit Manager of World Travel Arc filed affidavit with regard to admit or deny the handwritten document (marked as Annexure ‘X’) is concerned, he stated that the said document cannot be said to be given to the appellant as it does not contain any name of the appellant or any date when this document was scribed and if it is so, the same would have been produced by him during the pendency of the complaint before the Forum but it did not do so. He further stated that the Opposite Parties had explained all the plans available with them to the appellant(s) at the time of subscribing the plan by the appellant. The appellant(s) initially interested in getting a plan of 10 years but at the time of making payment, he had directed the Opposite Parties for opting a 5 years domestic plan, which was given according to him.   So, we find that there was no fault on the part of the Opposite Parties. In view of the aforesaid paras, we are of the view that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.

12.              For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum (now District Commission), being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the complainants, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum (now District Commission) is upheld.

13.              Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.

Pronounced.

19.04.2021                                                                      Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

rb