Order No.  22  dt.  09/11/2017

            The fact of the case according to the complainant in brief is that the complainant being convinced by a personnel of M/s. Panchawati Holiday Resorts Ltd., 3A, Aucland Place, 9^th Floor, Kolkata – 700017 (o.p.) has signed a purchase agreement of vacation ownership which entitles to particular member to enjoy/use resort/club facilities during vacation or any other particular time. On 28/04/2008 complainant underwent such an agreement for Pearl Beach Club and Resort membership along with RCI and Lake Land Country Club for 10 years by issuing a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- against receipt issued by the o.p., the maiden payment against the membership price of Rs. 70,000/-. Complainant thereafter paid Rs. 5,000/- in 2 installments against receipts towards payment of the remaining membership price. During such enticement complainant once again allured by the up-gradation of membership proposal interpolated by the General Manager of the o.p. company from White Season to Red Season and being convinced by such allurement complainant deposited Rs. 15,000/- on 30/06/2008 and Rs. 27,000/- on 30/08/2008. Thus after payment of Rs. 67,000/- complainant demanded enjoyment facilities in their entitled category of resort. But any such demand had not been fulfilled by the o.p. even after issuing demand notice on 08/09/2009. Complainant took shelter of mediation cell of the Consumer Affairs Directorate, Govt. of West Bengal. But no fruitful result had been derived therefrom. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint praying refund of Rs. 67,000/- with interest along with compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 20,400/-.

            O.p. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. Ld. Lawyer has also contended that Ld. Forum is lacking jurisdiction of this case. Ld. Lawyer has also added that the complainant has no specific cause of action and specific allegation and the complainant is speculative, false, concocted for making harassment to the o.p. Ld. Lawyer also argued that the case has been filed by the complainant to make illegal monetary gain. Again Ld. Lawyer has added that complainant has not come to the office of the o.p. to have the order for booking any trip. Hence the case may be dismissed.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice by the o.p.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:-

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

              Considering the submissions of the respective parties and from the documents on record it is an admitted fact that complainant had paid Rs. 67,000/- for vacation ownership in resorts to be arranged by the o.p. But the o.p. did not provide such arrangement as assured by the o.p. in their purchase agreement. Complainant entered into agreement on 28/04/2008 by paying Rs. 20,000/- and upgraded his membership by depositing Rs. 42,000/- on 30/08/2008. On the other hand by raising the issue of permanent card/temporary card/validity of card, complainant was denied to avail any facility out of his membership. For ventilation and mitigation of his grievance complainant issued letter on 08/09/2009 which has not been responded in any manner to pacify the issue of the complainant. Again o.p. had the scope to avail the mediation/reconciliation initiative taken by the Asst. Director, Consumer Affairs and FBP by calling the parties in dispute in a mediation meeting scheduled on 05/07/2010 for resolution of the case without any compensation. O.p. also placed a lame excuse that due to reconstruction and shifting work in the office certain documents and papers had been misplaced and for that reason o.p. had failed to attend the mediation meeting. Thus it can be drawn out that the personnel of the o.p. company are expert in alluring the customer and they have shown their expertise in their field even in motivating a senior citizen like the complainant who has been enticed in to the agreement with payments for that. Again the General Manager of the o.p. company has also made himself involved in such allurement. The o.p. company, thus, involved in earning money from the complainant without providing the service.

            With the above points in view we hold that there is gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. and therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, it is ordered,

            that the case no. 673 of 2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay Rs. 67,000/- (Rupees sixty seven thousand) along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) and litigation cost of Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees four thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

                       Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.