Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/812/2017

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited through its Authorized Representative - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Chawla s/o H.S.Chawla - Opp.Party(s)

Suraj Sharma

15 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 812/2017

 

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd. 1^st floor, Kelgiri Road, Pradhan Marg, Near Federal Bank Ltd., Malviya Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Rajesh Chawla s/o Late Sh.H.S.Chawla r/o 4 Dha-19 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 15.2.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Lokesh Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr.Pramod Shandilya counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by

2

 

the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 8.6.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellants is that the complaint is filed with forged documents. The proposal form and receipts were never issued by the appellants. Pankaj Chawla is not entitled for membership as he has crossed the upper age of 25 years. Annual maintenance charges of Rs. 8500/- including tax is applicable as per agreement between the parties. They never charged for RCI registration card and scheme is not prevailing hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the claim has rightly been allowed. There is no ground for interference.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The contention of the appellants that Ex. 1 was not issued by the appellants but the Forum below has rightly held that Ex. 1 is issued by the appellants and Ex. 18 also give

3

 

strength to it whereas the appellant has admitted the fact that our sales department had committed for life time and during course of arguments also the counsel for the appellants has not contended that Ex. 1 is forged one. Per contra his contention is that Ex. 1 is only proposal form and as per agreement between the parties Ex. 6 membership could not be allowed to Pankaj Chawla as he is above the age of 25 years whereas as per agreement dependent members could only be the children under 25 years of age but in Ex. 1 it has been offered by the appellants that membership would be issued to Pankaj Chawla. His date of birth has also been mentioned in it and in Ex. 18 the appellant has also accepted that they are now issuing life time clubbing card to Pankaj Chawla. Hence, appeal on this point is without any basis.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that RCI registration was never accepted. The respondent has submitted Ex. 5 receipt for the same given by the Paritosh Pandey. The contention of the appellant is that registration charges were not payable in cash but in Ex. 1 it has been specifically mentioned that the amount could be paid in cash. Hence, this contention has no basis.

4

 

The other contention of the appellant is that Ex. 5 is not a genuine document and if signed by any of his agent, the appellant is not liable but these contentions are not acceptable as Ex. 2 to 4 cheques are received by Paritosh Pandey and on the back of Ex. 2 it has been mentioned that he received the cheque for country club membership and signed by him. Same signature and writing appears on Ex. 5 the receipt of Rs. 1000/-. Hence, it could very well be concluded that Rs. 1000/- were received for RCI registration and all this controversy is useless now as vide Ex. 19 the appellant has accepted the payment of Rs. 1000/- for RCI registration and further mentioned that amount would be returned but admittedly the money has not been returned and vide Ex. 18 the appellant has accepted that they will issue RCI international card for the family. Hence, all this controversy could not stand now.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that scheme is not available now for RCI registration but in para 3 of the appeal it has been mentioned that esteemed members are affiliation of RCI membership which shows the falseness of the contention of the appellant and the Forum below has

 

5

 

rightly held that RCI international card should be provided to the consumer.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that as per agreement between the parties Rs. 8500/- were payable as annual maintenance contract and no deficiency has been committed by them in asking the same.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that Ex. 6 agreement was entered between the parties but in Ex. 1 which is now accepted document of the appellant there is no mention of the fact that any fee chargeable for AMC and when Ex. 1 is agreed between the parties it will govern the conditions entered into between the parties.

 

The consumer has rightly pointed out that no charges for AMC were agreed between the parties and Ex. 6 agreement is a standard agreement but the conditions between the parties govern from Ex. 1 which is also fortified from Ex. 8 whereas the appellant has agreed to give 50% discount on AMC in variation of Ex.6 it could very well be concluded that they agreed not to charge AMC at the time of entering into contract

6

 

vide Ex. 1 and the Forum below has rightly held that the appellants are not entitled to claim AMC fees from the consumer.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that Rs. 50,000/- compensation is ordered without any evidence. The consideration made above and the conclusion arrived at by the Forum below clearly shows deficiency of the appellant in not giving the services as agreed by Ex. 1 not only shows the deficiency on the part of the appellant but adopting unfair trade practice.

 

The appeal is filed without any plausible ground just to chase the customer as the appellant has accepted the contentions of the respondent vide Ex. 18 & 19. In view of the above the appeal is liable to be rejected on Rs. 10,000/- cost which should be paid to the consumer within one month failing it will carry 9% interest from the date of order.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm