Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/62/2022

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

Versus

Poonam Arora - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeep Sharma Adv.

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	62 of 2022
Date of Institution	25.05.2022
Date of Decision	21.10.2022

1. Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, (Earlier known as country Club India Ltd.), SCO 44-45, Sector-9D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Vijay Choudhary, (Earlier known as country Club India Ltd.), at present Director, Country Resorts Holidays India Private Limited, SOHO No.318, 3^rd Floor, Block-B, VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab-140603. (Complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed being not pressed for by complainant as per order dated 23.07.2021).
3. Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, (Earlier known as country Club India Ltd.), 6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

                                                          …..Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Poonam Arora W/o Sh. Bikramjit Arora, presently R/o House No.3854, Sector-32-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                   …..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.

 Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 07.03.2022, 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 No.1 & 3 are jointly & severally: -

“(i) To refund an amount of Rs.1,36,001/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the respective date of deposit, till realization.

(ii)   To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants;

(iii)  To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

      The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-, apart from the above relief.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being allured by the false offer & promises made by officials of Opposite Parties, took the membership of Opposite Party company for 30 years Vacation (Blue) Programme which includes the holiday facility for 6 Nights 7 days, for Studio Room. It was stated that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 on 26.05.2014 against receipts and also signed blanks form vide Annexure C-1 to C-4. It was further stated that the complainant received copy of vacation purchase agreement dated 06.06.2014 vide Annexure C-5 containing unconscionable and unreasonable clauses, but the original copy of Vacation Purchase Agreement was not supplied. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties for booking of destination of Manali from 30.12.2014 to 30.01.2015 but they responded with non-availability and asked to change the dates or destination. It was further stated when the complainant agreed for adjustability of dates from 01.01.2015 to 04.01.2015, she was asked to deposit Rs.3000/- as utility charges in the account of company and when complainant raised her grievance about such charge, they did not give any satisfactory reply. It was further stated that again in May, 2015, the complainant sought booking for Bangalore from the company of Opposite Parties, but she could not get the same for the relevant dates, as such she had to stay at Bangalore at her own expenses (Annexures C-9 & C-10). It was further stated again in November, 2016, the complainant sought booing for Bangalore telephonically from 18.11.2016 to 20.11.2016, but the Opposite Parties gave same reply of non-availability of accommodation of said dates.
3. It was further stated that the complainant paid another sum of Rs.11,00,001/- on 14.08.2017 under proper receipt against Annual Maintenance Charges to Opposite Parties vide Annexure C-11. It was further stated that the complainant sought booking from Opposite Parties instead of providing booking, raised demand of maintenance charges, without providing any services till date. It was further stated since the day of getting membership in the year 2014, the complainant never got the booking of holidays at the desired destination from Opposite Parties, and therefore the complainant, having no option, requested the Opposite Parties to cancel her membership and refund of total paid amount of Rs.1,36,001/- with interest and also sent a legal notice to Opposite Parties vide
   Annexures C-13 to C-15, but to no avail. 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.
4. The Opposite Parties filed their joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant after understanding all Membership Plans of Opposite Parties, opted for 30 years Blue Season Membership by paying an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 26.05.2014 against receipt. It was further stated that the complainant has gone through the terms of the contract/agreement carefully and then affixed her signature thereon (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that after the complainant received the copy of vacation purchase agreement dated 06.06.2014, no such grievance of unconscionable and unreasonable clauses or making her to sign the agreement under any allurement has been made for last more than 6 years which is now being alleged with an afterthought and malafide intention to wriggle out of the contract. It was further stated that complainant never approached Opposite Parties immediately after contract asking about the failure of mentioning the benefit and facilities in the agreement as promises at the time of selling the product and also in Clause No.23 under the agreement the period from 24^th December to 3^rd January are blocked out dates.  It was further stated that Opposite Parties were not in a position to provide the desired destination Manali for the desired dates which were blocked out dates and accordingly, the reservation department of Opposite Parties rightly asked the complainant to change the date or destination. It was further stated that Opposite Parties asked the complainant to deposit Rs.3000/- as utility charges in the account of Opposite Parties as the complainant sought reservation for the period from 01.01.2015 to 04.01.2015. It was further stated that the complainant never sought booking for Bangalore from 18.11.2016 to 20.11.2016 and also booking for Hotel Country Club De Goa from 25.12.2020 to 30.12.2020 was not possible for the reason that the dates were blocked out dates as per clause No.25 of the agreement.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never deprived the complainant and her family to avail and enjoy the life time club and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to seek refund of the amount paid towards vacation agreement. 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.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
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 going through the record of the learned District Commission, we find that the judgment of the District Commission needs no interference from this Commission. The appellants did not honour the request of the respondent for booking of the dates other than the peak season and the respondent had paid a very huge amount of Rs.1,25,000/- plus Rs.11001/- while opting for a membership. In order to avail some happy time/outing for their family, the appellants in fact had demanded more amount despite receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.11001/- without even providing booking on the date other than the peak season. It is observed that the respondent had suffered in the hands of the appellants due to deficient service rendered by the appellants and therefore, this Commission feels that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
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. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

21.10.2022

             

 

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

                           [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

                                                                  

 

 

                                                                               Sd/-                                       

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

                                                                                  Sd/-                                                 

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP