Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/894/2019

Ashok Kumar Tyagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panoramic Holidays Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Tyagi

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/894/2019
Date of Institution	:	30.8.2019
Date of Decision	:	16.1.2023

 

Ashok Kumar Tyagi s/o late Sh. Baljit Singh aged 54, Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Resident of H. No. 59, New Vikas Nagar, Baltana, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Punjab.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.    Panoramic Holidays Ltd. ( Magic Holidays) Khatau house, Basement Plot No.401/411, Mogul Lane, Behind Johnson & Johnson Co. Mahim(west) Mumbai, Maharashtra 400016 through its Managing Director.
2.    Panoramic Holidays Ltd. (Magic Holidays) having its regional office at SCO 65, 2^nd floor, (above Indian Overseas Bank) Sector 32-C Chandigarh 160032 through its Regional Manager.  (Opposite Party No.2 already deleted vide order dated 18.11.2019)

 .  … Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                        

ARGUED BY		Saurav Tyagi, Advocate for the complainant.
		Opposite Party No.1 exparte.
		Opposite Party No.2 deleted vide order dated 18.11.2019.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1. Briefly stated,  the complainant allured with the rosy pictures projected by the representatives of the OPs got enrolled with the Opposite Party company i.e. Magic Holidays on 31.8.2017 under Magic Holidays Plan Tenure of 5 years with white season and apartment being studio  and magic holidays scheme name Flexi5-Reg-white-studio-July-2017. The total consideration for the said scheme was Rs.77,700/- and total nights which were to be used during the said period were 35.  The complainant initially paid Rs.19425/- as  advance money for enrollment to the holiday package scheme  vide Annexure C-2(colly). The remaining amount was to be paid by monthly installments for the period of 12 months which was paid by the complainant as is reflected in Annexure C-3. In the month of February 2018, the complainant desired to book an apartment in the said scheme for his son and wife in Goa for 4 nights and 5 days which was informed through email to the Opposite Parties company on 6.2.2018. In response to that the Opposite Parties asked the complainant to deposit the remaining 50% amount  to avail the benefit and also it was intimated regarding deduction of more (double)   nights in the voucher booking due to Red season.  It is alleged that the Opposite Parties never disclosed regarding the Red season and as such the complainant contacted the Chandigarh Branch for clarification but no satisfactory reply was received. It is further alleged that the complainant was never clarified about the free look period  nor the same was explained.   The complainant disappointed with the service of OPs asked for cancellation of his membership and refund of the entire deposited amount as the complainant has never availed any services of the Opposite Parties but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed a legal notice  Annexure C-7 was sent to the Opposite Parties but nothing fruitful came out. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2.  Opposite Party No.2 was deleted vide order dated 18.11.2019 in view of the endorsement made by the counsel for the complainant on the complaint file.
3. The Opposite Party NO.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant as per written contract signed by the complainant he is not eligible for refund of the part membership fee paid as he failed to approach the opponents within look in period of ten days. It is denied that the Opposite Parties misrepresented the complainant regarding the season criteria. No one takes a membership of Rs.77,700/- in EMIs unless he knows for what he is paying the same. It is averred that as a regular process a copy of membership form containing membership rules was immediately given to the complainant. Moreover the complainant signed a declaration as given in Exhibit 1 wherein in point NO.7 the season criteria has been clearly explained. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
4. After filing reply the counsel for Opposite Party  No.1 did not turn up to file evidence by way of affidavit for several dates, consequently its evidence was closed vide order dated 18.6.2021. Thereafter also none turned up on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 to argue the matter despite fresh notice issued, hence, vide order dated 18.10.2022 it was proceeded against exparte
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
6. Complainant led evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Whereas the Opposite Party No.1 only adduced documents and no evidence by way of affidavit filed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
8. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was not explained the season which he has chosen i.e. white season and when he booked an apartment in the said scheme in Goa the OPs asked him to pay remaining 50% amount and also intimated regarding deduction of more (double)  nights in the voucher booking due to red season.  We do not agree with this plea of the complainant.   On perusal of the documents Annexure C-1, which is a Magic Holiday Application Form alongwith Membership Rules of the Scheme, it is observed that the complainant himself has signed the said application form and he has also signed on every page of membership rules wherein at para 7 of the Applicant’s confirmation of Membership Understanding, duly signed by the complainant, he had given undertaking that he understands all the enrolment benefits in  relation to his Magic Holidays Membership based on the type of season and the type of apartment purchased by him and that the rules of travelling into season & type of apartment  other than his own season and apartment are based on holiday conversion rules prevailing at the time of booking.  Thus, the plea of the complainant that he was not explained the season is falsified. Even otherwise if the complainant was not satisfied with the scheme he could have approached the OPs within the free look period but he did not do so. Hence, no case is made out against the Opposite Parties and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member