Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/128/2023

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM KUMARI - Opp.Party(s)

PRADEEP SHARMA

31 Aug 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	128 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	09.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	31.08.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

1]      Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., #6-3-1219/A, 4^th & 5^th Floors, Country Club Building, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016.

2]      Customer Care Manager, Country Club & Vacation, SCO No.44 & 45, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160009.

 

….Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Smt. Prem Kumari W/o Sh. Kama Dev Sharma, resident of #24, Sun City, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar, Punjab.

 

...Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:           JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Sukhvir Vohra & Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Advocates for the appellants.

Smt. Prem Kumari, respondent in person.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

          This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties - Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited & its Customer Care Manager  (appellants herein) against order dated 19.04.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide which, consumer complaint No.842 of 2019 filed by the complainant – Smt. Prem Kumari (respondent herein) has been allowed against the appellants by directing them to refund an amount    of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent with 9% interest from the date of deposit/payment till realization and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of causing mental and physical harassment to her and expenses for litigation cost. The order has been directed to be complied with within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of its copy.

2]     Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the impugned order passed by the District Commission reads thus:-

“The complainant filed present complaint pleading that as per persuasion and allurement of OP No.2, the complainant joined OP Club and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- whereupon the OPs allotted complainant Customer No.CVCDF1V10LB248990, dated 15.2.2018 and two voucher for vacation.  It is submitted that the complainant along with her husband had to go to Rameshwaram, so they called upon OPs in this regard, but they stated there is no property of Country Club at Rameshwaram.  Thereafter, the complainant along with her husband planned to go to Kathmandu, Nepal & Shirdi and informed the OPs about their plan, but the OPs gave same reply of having no property at Kathamandu or Shirdi. As such, the complainant on being not getting any services from OPs despite making payment of Rs.50,000/- sent email to OPs on 29.10.2018 to cancel her membership and refund the amount paid, followed by reminders and legal notice, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2]      The OPs have filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant and her husband on their own willingly joined the OPs and opted for their Membership, the consideration of which was fixed at Rs.1,69,000/- as onetime non-refundable vacation charges and the same was clearly mentioned in Sale Agreement (Ann.R-2).  It is stated that the complainant paid partial sum of Rs.50,000/- to OP and the balance was to be paid later.  It is also stated that in the Welcome letter issued to complainant it was mentioned that as per 10 years vacations (blue) Member, the complainant was required to pay Rs.10,500/- as mandatory annual administrative charges (AMC).  It is denied that the complainant asked for the vacations in Kathmandu and Shirdi, thus there is no question of replying to the complainant.  It is submitted that had complainant any intention to visit Rameshwaram or any other destination, she was required to book the vacation on the given website by using username and password and that too after clearance of balance amount of membership fee as well as annual maintenance charges.  It is also submitted that OP neither has owned or associated property at Rameshwaram and therefore, the complainant is otherwise not entitled to claim booking for the said destination.  It is further submitted that complainant is only claiming refund of partial money paid by her by making false allegations and as such the OP Company denied their request.”

3]     After hearing the contesting parties and going through the material available on record, the District Commission allowed the complaint against the appellants, as stated above.

4]      The order of the District Commission has been assailed on the ground that the email dated 01.02.2019 sent by the respondent, after eight months of entering into agreement dated 15.05.2018, was an afterthought; that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the contents of the said agreement; that the District Commission also failed to appreciate that the respondent had paid only a partial sum of Rs.50,000/- out of total membership fee of Rs.1,69,000/- and did not clear the balance payment of Rs.1,19,000/- within agreed next 45 days from the date of signing the agreement and also did not clear annual maintenance charges and that thus, the benefits and membership fee plus annual maintenance charges under the agreement cannot be availed on pro-rata basis and cannot be divided annually or per vacation.

5]      On the other hand, the respondent appeared in person and argued that the District Commission has rightly allowed her complaint on the basis of documentary evidence on record and she prayed that the appeal be dismissed as such.

6]      It may be stated here that there is a delay of mere 11 days in filing the appeal for condonation whereof, the appellants have moved a miscellaneous application No.467 of 2023 wherein it has been stated that the certified copy of impugned order was prepared and dispatched on 24.04.2023 by the registry, which the appellants received on 28.04.2023. Thereafter, the appellants prepared the appeal in time and shared its soft copy through mail for vetting and signatures; however, the laptop of legal officer of the appellants Company got damaged and it took four days in repairing the same. Thereafter, printout of appeal was taken and signed and then sent through courier to the counsel for its filing. It has further been stated that due to the reasons aforesaid, delay of 11 days happened in filing the present appeal.

7]      In view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the appellants have a rational reason for the delay, which has been caused due to procedure involved as sufficiently explained by the appellants. Moreover, the contents of the application has been supported by a duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Bharat Reddy, Legal Officer of the appellants. Therefore, miscellaneous application bearing No.467 of 2023 is allowed. The delay of just 11 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

8]      After hearing the Counsel for the appellants and the respondent in person and going through the documentary evidence/material available on record, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which deserves to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The District Commission in its order has rightly observed that the appellants did not render any service to the respondent despite receipt of consideration nor refunded her the amount and such an act on their part clearly amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which certainly caused loss and harassment to the respondent. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellants referred to various clauses of the agreement to defeat the claim of the respondent. Bare perusal of the Sale Agreement annexed with the complaint by the respondent transpires that though it bears the signatures of both the parties yet it is undated as no date has been mentioned in the opening line of this agreement and the column meant for date has been left blank. Even the welcome letter issued by the appellants to the respondent for becoming part of the Country Vacations family with Membership No.CVCDG1V10LB248990 also does not bear any date. However, in this letter, the receipt of payment of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent on 20.02.2018 has been acknowledged. Two vouchers valid for the period from 15.02.2018 to 14.02.2019 were also issued to the respondent. It was the specific case of the respondent that when she and her husband contacted one Mr. Amit Saha, official of the appellant that they wish to visit Rameshwaram, it was informed by Mr. Amit Saha that the appellants were not having their properties at Rameshwaram and similar was the reply of the appellants for Kathmandu (Nepal) and Shirdi. It may be stated here that the destinations Rameshwaram & Kathmandu (Nepal) may not be there in clause 7 of the agreement but the destination Shiridi is very much mentioned therein, meaning thereby that the appellants even refused the respondent for their visit to Shiridi. The contention of the appellants that email dated 01.02.2019 sent by the respondent, after eight months of entering into agreement dated 15.05.2018, was an afterthought, is not well based for the simple reason that once the appellants themselves did not mention the date in the agreement, then they cannot be heard to say that this letter was an afterthought. The respondent raised her grievance with the appellants by sending various emails and legal notice, annexed with the complaint, seeking cancellation of her membership and refund of the amount paid but the appellants did not pay any heed to her request. Thus, in our considered view, the District Commission rightly allowed the complaint and ordered refund of the amount paid by the respondent to the appellants. Therefore, the order of the District Commission, being just and legal, is liable to be upheld and the appeal deserves dismissal.

9]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

10]              Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

31.08.2023.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad