Delhi

North

CC/116/2018

MANOJ SINGH(ADVOCATE) - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. MOUNTAIN CLUB RESORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jan 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 116/2018

In the matter of

Sh. Manoj Singh

S/o Sh.Jodha Singh

R/o Block-A, Pocket-2

H.No.69, Sector-16

Rohini, Delhi-110089                                                                                            ...Complainant

                                                                        v/s

M/s. Mountain club Resorts

India Private Limited

Through its Managing Director

506, 5^th floor, Vishwadeep Tower

District Centre, Janakpuri

New Delhi-110058

Also at :

Punjabi Colony, Lane No.2

Kashipur Road

Ramnagar-244715 (Nainital)                                                                                ... Opposite  party

ORDER

          12/1/2024

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

1. Jurisdiction of this commission has been invoked by Sh.Manoj Singh, the complainant against M/s Mountain Club Resorts India Pvt.Ltd.  As per the complaint, the OP is having corporate office at 506, 5^th floor, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058. 
2. On 21/01/2018, the complainant was invited at TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Cinema Road, Shivaji Place, Vishal Enclave, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110018 by the Sales Executive of OP.  The Complainant along with his wife and one relative visited the office of OP, where he was informed by Ms.Nidhi and Mr.Anil, Sales Executives of OP that he had won voucher of 4 days holiday. The complainant was also informed that in case he opted for a membership he will get 56 days of holidays in five years with free stay and food at the resorts and hotels of OP throughout the country.
3. The complainant was further assured by above named sales executives that there were no hidden charges and convinced the complainant to sign an agreement dated 21/08/2018 upon payment of Rs.55,000/- (Membership fees). It has been alleged by the complainant that he and his wife were made to sign on the documents whereas the authorised signatory did not sign the same. When the complainant demanded the Rules of occupation of resorts, he was informed by above named Mr. Anil that rules of occupation of resort would be sent with the membership certificate.
4. On 24/01/2018, complainant contacted Mr.Anil for booking of 02 rooms from 10/02/2018 to 11/02/2018 at Jim Corbett, Uttarakhand, where he was informed that he had to take compulsory Buffet @Rs.2400/- per head.  A formal email was also written on 05/02/2018 in response to which the complainant was informed that the desired dates were not available at Jim Corbett and food charge of Corbett was compulsory @Rs.2400/- per day per head.
5. Complainant contacted Customer Care Department of OP, where he was informed that dates will be made available if complainant is ready to take the compulsory buffet.
6. Again , the complainant wrote an email dated 17/02/2018, when he decided to gift 07 days holiday at Goa to one of his friend for his honeymoon from 11/03/2018 to 17/03/2018 at De Placidio, Candolim beach, Goa ,where the complainant was informed that Rs.5,000/- as guest fees with utility charges shall be levied.
7. On 26/02/2018, the complainant received membership card bearing number NAMC-11865 with covering letter dated 21/01/2017 without any rules of occupation wherein the said agreement was shown to be signed at Ramnagar, Uttarakhand. 
8. On 19/02/2018, the complainant received an email stating that the desire resort/hotel was not available and OP is providing booking only at Pirache Art and Palmarinha Resort to which the complainant agreed and received an email dated 22/02/2018, informing that the request had been forwarded for booking.  It was only on 09/03/2018 at 3.30 p.m. the complainant was informed that the resort was not available for the desired dates, thus the complainant had to book another resort between 3.30 p.m. to 4.28 p.m. in the name of his friend by making a payment of Rs.10,692/-.
9. Again, on the same day i.e. 09/03/2018 at 4.28 p.m., the complainant received another mail confirming booking on the payment of Rs.12,550/-. Legal notice dated 22/03/2018, was served upon OP.   The complainant has alleged that OP has deceived him by giving false and misleading statement and has been following unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.
10. The complainant has submitted that he wrote an email to OP on 17/02/2018, from his office at B-2, Baba G.S.Block, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054 for booking hotel/ resort at Goa and received the reply from OP on the same day which was also seen by him on his system/laptop at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.  Thus, this Commission had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. 
11. The complainant had prayed for direction to OP to refund the amount of Rs.55,000/- alongwith interest @18% from the date of payment; compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @18%  till realization on account of damages for unfair trade practices, deficiency in services, mental agony and harassment; Rs.50,000/- towards the litigation expenses and any other or further orders/relief which the commission deemed fit in the interest of justice.
12. The complainant has annexed the copy of the image of website of OP as Annexure-C-1, copy of voucher in the name of the complainant as Annexure C-2, copy of receipt dated 21/01/2018 as Annexure C-3, copy of agreement as Annexure C-4; copy of emails dated 05/02/2018 as Annexure C-5; copy of emails dated 17/02/2018, 19/02/2108, 20/02/2018 and 22/02/2018 as Annexure C-6 and Annexure C-7, copy of letter dated 21/01/2017 (though it seems to be a typographical error it should have been 21/01/2018) alongwith DTDC Express receipt dated 24/02/2018 and tracking report  as Annexure C-8 ; copy of email dated 09/03/2018 as Annexure C-9 and voucher issued by Make my Trip dated 09/03/2018 as Annexure C-10. The copy of Legal Notice 22/03/2018 alongwith postal receipt as Annexure C-11.
13. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs. None appeared despite service nor any reply was filed on their behalf, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17/09/2018.
14. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the Complainant where he has reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He has relied upon document annexed with the complaint and has got them exhibited. Copy of the image of website of OP as Ex.CW-1/1, copy of voucher in the name of the complainant as Ex.CW-1/2, copy of receipt dated 21/01/2018 as Ex.CW-1/3, copy of agreement as Ex.CW-1/4; copy of emails dated 05/02/2018 as Ex.CW-1/5; copy of emails dated 17/02/2018, 19/02/2108, 20/02/2018 and 22/02/2018 as Ex.CW-1/6 and Ex.CW-1/7, copy of letter dated 21/01/2017 (though it seems to be a typographical error it should have been 21/01/2018) alongwith DTDC Express receipt dated 24/02/2018 and tracking report  as Ex.CW-1/8; copy of email dated 09/03/2018 as Ex.CW-1/9 and voucher issued by Make my Trip dated 09/03/2018 as Ex.CW-1/10 & Ex.CW-1/11. The copy of legal Notice 22/03/2018 alongwith postal receipt as Ex.CW-1/12 & Ex.CW-1/13.
15. First and foremost the question before us is whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.  As per Ex.CW1/1, the address of OP is:

1. Mountain Club Resorts

CORPORATE OFFICE :

506, 5^th floor, Vishwadeep Tower, District Centre,

Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

2. Mountain Club Resorts

PANJABI COLONY, LANE NO.2,KASHIPUR ROAD,

RAMNAGAR-244715 (NAINITAL)

As per Ex.CW-1/3, the head office of OP is situated at Ramnagar, Nainital and the Sales office address is TDI Paragon, Rajouri Garden , Delhi.

16. The date of institution of the present complaint is 24/05/2018. Thus, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 will be applicable. Section 11, of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, deals with the territorial jurisdiction:

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—

17.  It is the admitted case of the complainant that he had visited the Sales office of OP situated in Rajouri Garden, Delhi (West District). To invoke the jurisdiction of this commission, the complainant has argued that an email dated 17/02/2018, was written to OP from his office situated at B-2, Baba G.S.Block Tis Hazari Court, and receipt the reply from OP, was also seen by him on his system/laptop at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.  The complainant in support of his submission has filed print out from the site “IP2LOCATION”.  It is seen that this document specifies the location as Delhi, but not specifically Tis Hazari (North District).
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.B.C Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.vs A.P Agencies, Salem (Manu/SC/0001/1989) has observed that

15. In the matter of contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds.In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred.The making of the contract is part of the cause of action.A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made.The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of law of contract.But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and it intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated.”

19. The complainant in support of his argument has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC titled as “Spice Jet Ltd. vs Ranju Aery” IV(2017)CPJ1(NC)                               where it was observed that the part of cause of action has arisen at Chandigarh, because with booking of the travel ticket on the internet, the acceptance of the contract was received by the complainant through internet at his place of business/residence. Thus, it implies the place where the contract came into existence, however, in the present case , the contract was entered /made in the West District, Delhi.  Merely stating that the emails was seen by the complainant in Tis Hazari, Delhi (North District) will not confer territorial jurisdiction  to entertain the present complaint. Thus, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
20. Therefore, in the light of above discussion we are of the opinion that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, however, the complainant is at liberty to file the present complaint before appropriate Commission having jurisdiction, if so advised.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.