Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/64/2021

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naresh Madan - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeep Sharma, B.L. Sharma & Rohit Malik Adv.

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	64 of 2021
Date of Institution	03.09.2021
Date of Decision	12.08.2022

1. Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, (CCHHL), Head Office
   #6-3-1219, 2^nd Floor, Country Club Kool, Country Club India Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad-16.
2. Sirmoy Banerjee, Manager, Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., (CCHHL), SCO 44-45, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
3. Managing Director, Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, (CCHHL), Head Office #6-3-1219, 2^nd Floor, Country Club Kool, Country Club India Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad-16.

  …..Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Naresh Madan S/o Late Sardari Lal aged about 71 years R/o H.No.1212, Sector-42-B, Chandigarh-160036.

                                                                         …..Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants.

 Ms. Ritu Pathak, Advocate & Sh. Yatin Sardana, Advocate for the respondent.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 04.03.2021, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions to the Opposite Parties: -

“(i)   Refund Rs.2,45,000/- along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of its deposit till its realization to the complainant.

(ii)   Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

(iii)  Pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

8.   This order be complied with by the OPs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the on 19.12.2017, the complainant received a call that his name was selected out of lucky draw.  It was stated that the complainant alongwith his wife reached the office of the Opposite Parties where Opposite Party No.2 allured them to purchase a holiday package at a discounted rate and therefore, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2.45 lacks to the Opposite Parties for enrollment to the membership.  It was further stated that on discussion amongst the family members i.e. complainant’s daughter who resides abroad, the complainant realized that they do not actually need such vacation tours and moreover, when he offered the vacation to his daughter, she refused to avail it. It was further stated that the complainant decided to return/cancel the membership within cool off period of 10 days and sent an e-mail dated 21.12.2017 to the Central Customer Care and Local Manager (Opposite Party No.2) requesting for cancellation/surrender of the membership within two days of its purchase. It was further stated that on coming to know about the cancellation of the membership, the Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and persuaded him and his wife not to cancel the membership by stating that if they cancel the membership then he was to be terminated from the job and it was a bad situation for him, as he is the only bread winner of the family. It was further stated that instead of cancellation, he offered the complainant that he could transfer the membership to some other client and pay in cash.  It was further stated that the complainant had recently lost his son and considering Opposite Party No.2 of the same age and lone bread winner of the family, the complainant got sympathic and trusted his words and Opposite Party No.2 asked him to open his e-mail account and then Opposite Party No.2 sent an e-mail dated 27.12.2017 from e-mail account of the complainant to his email ID stating “pl. Ignore the previous mail”.  It was further stated that he continued to demand the refund and cancellation of the membership but Opposite Party No.2 kept on replying to the messages and delayed the matter.  It was further stated that in the month of July, 2018 when the complainant pressed Opposite Party No.2 for returning money, he flatly refused to transfer the membership or return the money. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties filed their joint reply and submitted that the complainant along with his wife visited the Opposite Parties enquiring about various memberships plans and he opted for “Blue Season” membership at a negotiable agreed one time non-refundable fee (cash out price) of Rs.2.45 lakhs which was valid for 30 years and under which he and his wife/spouse, 2 children below 12 years of age were entitled to holiday in India for the next 30 years and accordingly signed the sale agreement on 19.12.2017 itself.  It was stated that the complainant after thoroughly going through the terms and conditions of the contract and after understanding the same and being fully satisfied, signed the same without any protest or suggestion.  It was further stated that as per e-mail dated 21.12.2017, the complainant wanted to withdraw the membership within cool off period, however immediately after one day on 23.12.2017, the complainant sent another e-mail by mentioning ‘pl. Ignore the previous mail”.  It was further stated that since the request within the cool off period was taken back by the complainant himself, the Opposite Parties therefore did not refund the membership fee and also denied that the Opposite Party No.2 himself sent e-mail dated 27.12.2017.  It was further stated that the membership fee is not a refundable deposit and not an investment and the same is not refundable under any circumstances. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5.  In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties and, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. On a perusal of the Learned District Commission’s record, we find that the complaint has been partly allowed with the reliefs to the complainant as mentioned in the instant para of the order. The main grouse of the respondent in this case was the appellants failed to refund the amount of Rs.2.45 lacs to the respondent despite his repeated requests and e-mail dated 21.12.2017 which was within the cool off period of ten days. It is also observed that the respondents were relying upon all the terms and conditions of the agreement which are one sided. Further, it has been observed by the lower Commissions that the membership agreements are only a standard format of contract where the weaker party remains on the receiving end. Unfair trade practice is writ large on the face of the appellants
    and therefore, this Commission is inclined to fall in line with the order passed by the learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal stands disposed of.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
12. This Commission is inclined to fall in line with the decision of the District Commission and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
13. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.608 of 2021 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 04.03.2021 also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

12.08.2022

           

                                                                            Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

                                                              

                

                                                                             Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

 

 

                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                                              

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP