STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

M/s Royals Club International,   B-135, Second Floor, Sector 2, Noida -201301(UP) .

                                                                                         ...  Appellant.

                                               Versus

1. Pooja Jain, aged 41 years w/o Sh. Supreet Jain, resident of House No.702, Lyra Taj Towers, Sector 104, SAS Nagar (Mohali)
2. Sh. Supreet Jain son fo Sh.Sudesh Kumar Jain, resident of House No.702, Lyra Taj Towers, Sector 104, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

                                                                            ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 26.10.2021 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.500/2020.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.D.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellant

                         Sh.Varinder Arora, Advocate   for the respondents

 PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2021, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/500/2020 and directed the Opposite Party in the following terms;-

1.         to refund the amount of ₹2,00,000/-  as membership                   fee and ₹8,500/- as annual maintenance charges, paid         by the complainants, alongwith interest @9% per                       annum w.e.f. 12.9.2020 till realisation.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainants as                compensation for causing mental agony and                                harassment to them;

iii.      to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainants as costs of                         litigation.

         The above  order was directed to  be complied with by the Opposite Party within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it  was made liable to  make payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) &  (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.

 2.        Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainants/respondents that on the  allurement made by the  officials of Opposite Party/appellant, complainants visited Hotel Lemon Tree Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Chandigarh on 12.9.2020 where officials of the Opposite Party  had set up a camp in order to  explain holiday package by representing  the Opposite Party as a reputed company in the field. The complainants were allured to purchase a holiday package and  an approval form was got  filled from them for Gold Membership for 20 years against annual membership of ₹2,50,000/- with additional annual maintenance charges of ₹8,500/-. The complainants were also explained   that there would  be a complementary stay of three nights in India, which the complainants have already availed. Apart from the said offer, two air tickets of ₹35,000/- each were also offered by the Opposite Party to the complainants for the adults and booking of birthday celebration of family member as was  mentioned in the approval form. Subsequently, membership application form was also got executed between the parties at Chandigarh mentioning all the details. A copy of the membership application form is Annexure C-2. The said membership form also contained the terms and conditions so agreed between the parties. It was alleged that  there was total contradiction between the oral explanation  regarding the plan so explained by the officials of the Opposite Party, and the execution of the plan. The  Complainants were offered one night accommodation on birthday of each family member and were also informed that appellant had tie-ups with more than 500 resorts, but, later on it was informed by one of the officials of the Opposite Party that  it had tie-ups with only 50 hotels.  The Complainants were further allured that they could avail international destination. The complainants sent an email dated 7.10.2020 for booking of hotel on the occasion of birthday of complainant No.2 on 27.10.2020, but, nothing was done.  It was further alleged that the complainants had made payment of ₹2,00,000/- towards membership and ₹8,500/- as annual maintenance charges to the Opposite party, but, it failed to provide any service to them.   Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

3.                  Opposite Party/appellant did not appear before the Learned Lower Commission despite issuance of registered notice,  hence, it was  presumed to have been duly served and  vide order  dated 9.2.2021, it was proceeded against ex parte.  

 4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the complaint of the complainants/respondents, as noted in the opening para of this order.    

5.                Aggrieved against the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party to set aside the ex-parte order and  for  deciding the complaint afresh, on merits, by the Ld. Lower Commission.    

6.                     We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.                 The Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant  had never received any legal or demand notice from the respondents prior to filing of the consumer complaint.  After filing of the consumer complaint also, the appellant never received any notice from the District Commission. It was further contended that the concerned employee of the appellant, who was handling its legal  & governmental relation cases had left  the job on 31.03.2021 and computerized-e-data of the appellant was also  lost during second wave of COVID-19.  It was further contended that the respondents had intentionally concealed the basic facts of the case as they had utilized, realized and enjoyed the stay services at the resorts given by the appellant at the destination booked. Through this appeal, it is prayed that the ex-parte order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Ld. Lower Commission for deciding it afresh on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the  order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is well reasoned and does not require and interference.   

8.                  The main plea urged in the appeal is that neither any  notice of the complaint was received by the appellant, nor the complainants  issued any legal or demand notice prior to filing of the consumer  complaint in the Ld. Lower Commission, as such, it was not aware of the pendency of the complaint.    Further,  the  perusal of the zimni order dated 6.11.2020 passed by  the Ld. Lower Commission reveals that at that  time consumer cases were taken up in the District Commission through video conferencing due outbreak of COVID-19.   On the said date, after admitting the complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to the Opposite Party for 9.2.2021. It was also recited therein that long date was given due to large pendency of cases and spread of COVID-19 Pandemic.  On  the date fixed i.e. 9.2.2021, it was again recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission in its order of the said date  that the cases were taken up through video conferencing  due to outbreak of the pandemic.   Since  there was no report regarding service of notice on the Opposite Party as the same was not received back served or unserved, the Ld. Lower Commission, on the basis of presumption that since a period of more than 30 days had elapsed, OP was presumed to have been served, and as none had put in appearance on its behalf , it was proceeded against ex parte.  In the instant appeal, a specific plea has been raised that the appellant/Opposite party had never received notice of the complaint and there is no rebuttal to it.    

9.                Keeping in view the circumstances especially due to Covid-19, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the appellant/Opposite Party may be accorded another opportunity to present his case before the Lower Commission. 

10.              In this view of the matter, present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.2021, under challenge, is set aside.

11.             The Appellant/Opposite Party is permitted to place on record reply and evidence/affidavit on the next date of hearing before the Ld. Lower Commission to be fixed by this Commission.   We make it very clear that in case, reply and evidence/affidavit is not filed on the next date of hearing, no further opportunity shall be granted for the said purpose.

12.            The Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Lower Commission concerned on 24.04.2023.

13.            Complete record of complaint file be sent back to the Ld. Lower Commission alongwith certified copy of this order, so as to reach there well before the date fixed.

14.            Since the present appeal has been allowed,  pending misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off accordingly.

15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            File be consigned to the Record Room, after completion.    

 .