Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party No.2 is a holiday club and the Opposite Party No.1 is the Managing Director of the Opposite Party No.2 – Holiday Club. The Opposite Party No.3 is one of the resorts of the Opposite Party No.2 – Holiday Club. (Hereinafter for the sake of brevity all the Opposite Parties are collectively referred to as the ‘Opposite Party – Holiday Club’ only). The Complainant had taken membership of the Opposite Party No.2 – Holiday Club; on making payment of an amount in sum of Rs.1,18,750/- towards the membership fees. Against that payment, the Complainant was entitled to get yearly one week at any of the resorts maintained by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club. [2] It is the case of the Complainant that he had asked for two weeks holidays at ‘Sterling Elk Hill’, Ooty; during the period 15/4/2007 to 22/4/2007 and ‘Sterling Yercaud’, from 22/4/2007, by making request in the month of Nov-2006, but the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; could not provide reservation of the said resorts. The Complainant, while becoming a member, was given an assurance that the Opposite Party – Club; would give free one week holiday at any of the resorts, but the Opposite Party – Club; failed to keep that promise. It is further case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party – Club; was not responding to the Complainant’s request for reservation of the resorts and the Complainant decided to cancel his membership. The Complainant sought refund of his membership fees from the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; and when his request was turned down, the Complainant filed present consumer complaint before this Forum, seeking direction, as against the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; to refund him an amount in sum of Rs.1,18,750/- together with interest thereon as well as to pay compensation. [3] Pursuant to the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; appeared and contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence, but admitted the fact that the Complainant had become a member on making payment of membership fees in sum of Rs.1,18,750/-. Under the purchase agreement dtd.6/12/2004, the Complainant traded in ‘Toshali Sands Puri Time Share’ Membership in a studio apartment for a period of one week and was allotted 126 points for total purchase price of an amount in sum of Rs.1,18,750/-. [4] The Opposite Party – Holiday Club; explained that the reservation of the resorts sought by the Complainant was already booked and the Complainant was entitled to a holiday at a particular resort subject to availability. The Opposite Party – Holiday Club; has offered an explanation for not accepting each & every reservation request made by the Complainant and has denied allegations of deficiency in service on its part. [5] The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written version of defence filed by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; and reiterated that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Holiday Club. [6] Parties to the complaint proceeding filed their respective affidavits of evidence, copies of relevant documents and written notes of arguments. [7] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents as well as written notes of arguments filed by the parties. [8] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; is guilty of deficiency in service on account of not allotting reservation at a particular resort, as requested by the Complainant? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to seek refund of membership fees? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [9] The Opposite Party – Holiday Club; has explained that the Complainant had requested for an accommodation for two person for a period of two weeks from 25/3/2006 to 1/4/2006 at ‘Sterling Resort’, Yercaud; and by a letter, the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; had confirmed the week from 26/3/2006 to 2/4/2006 in a studio unit at ‘Sterling Yercaud’. Copy of the confirmation letter produced on the record by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; alongwith list of documents at page (09) of the compilation, supports this statement. According to the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; it was followed by a letter dtd.16/1/2006 & 31/1/2006, but the Complainant did not confirm the booking. [10] The Opposite Party – Holiday Club; has also explained that the Complainant had requested for a holiday booking at ‘Sterling Elk Hill’ Ooty, from 8/4/2007 to 15/4/2007 and ‘Sterling Yercaud’ from 15/4/2007 to 22/4/2007. According to the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; however, reservation department of the Sterling Resorts accept booking request only three months prior to check-in date and requested the member to resend the request at a later date. According to the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; pursuant to above situation, the Complainant sent booking request on 8/1/2007 for revised dates i.e. from 15/4/2007 to 22/4/2007 of ‘Sterling Elk Hill’, Ooty; and one week from 22/4/2007 to 29/4/2007 at ‘Sterling Yercaud’. By a letter dtd.20/1/2007, the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; expressed regret informing the Complainant that Sterling Resort at Yercaud was fully booked during the period requested. Still then, the Opposite Party – Holiday Resort; managed to secure an accommodation for the Complainant at ‘Sterling Fern Hill’ at Ooty during the period 2/4/2007 to 6/4/2007 and at Sterling Yercaud during the period 9/4/2007 to 13/4/2007. Copy of letter dtd.20/1/2007, which is at page (15) of the compilation of documents as produced on the record by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; support above statements about the adjustment made by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; and advice being given to the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; the Complainant did not send confirmation in response to this letter from the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; about reservation of the resort. At page (17) of the compilation of the documents, there is a copy of the request made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; for reservation of resort at ‘Sterling Munnar’ during the period 29/1/2007 to 31/1/2007. This request was made by the Complainant, by an e-mail dtd.18/1/2007. It was followed by a fax message dtd.23/1/2007. To this, the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; replied by its letter dtd.26/1/2007, a copy of which is produced on the record at page (19) of the compilation, it was explained to the Complainant that during school holidays, this destination being extremely popular and the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; has limited quota at this resort, and therefore, reservation was not possible. [11] Correspondence between the Complainant, on one hand and the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; on the other shows that no doubt, the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; could not accept the request made by the Complainant for reservation of a particular resort, but the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; on each occasion had given justification for the same. Be it noted in this context that a member is not entitled to for a week at a particular resort as of right. Request made by a member for reservation of accommodation at a particular resort can be considered by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; subject to availability of accommodation at that particular resort. A member is not entitled to ask, as or right, reservation at a particular resort for a particular week. [12] According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; had never acceded to his request and ultimately being frustrated, he decided to quit from the membership and sought refund of membership fees. Copy of the purchase agreement is produced on the record by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; at page (01) of the compilation and under Condition No.14 thereof, the Complainant had agreed that the agreement was irrevocable. Under Condition No.(08) of the agreement, the Complainant had agreed to abide by reservation procedure as set out in the member’s guide. It appears that the Complainant became disappointed and got frustrated when his request for reservation of a particular resort for a particular week was not acceded to by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club. However, on making scrutiny of the correspondence, we find that reservation of the Complainant could not be acceded to by the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; not on account of negligence or there was no deliberate attempt to sideline the Complainant. The Opposite Party – Holiday Club; on each occasion, had offered justification for the same, which was not acceptable to the Complainant. In any case, on making assessment of the material, we find that this is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; and therefore, we are not inclined to give direction to the Opposite Party – Holiday Club; to refund membership fees to the Complainant. With this, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | |
