DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.101/2023
Sujata Mittal
W/o Rajesh Mittal
R/o 122, Sreshha Vihar
New Delhi-110092.
Rajesh Mittal
S/o Late G.C. Mittal
R/o 122, Sreshha Vihar
New Delhi-110092. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Signature Linkers Private Limited
Through its Director
K-28, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II
New Delhi-110024. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Vibhor Singh along with complainant No.2.
Present: Adv. S.B. Sharan for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:24.03.2024
Date of Order :15.10.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainants have filed the present complaint seeking Rs.2,25,000/- with 18% interest from 15.01.2019; Rs.5,00,000/-on account of compensation; order directing to OP to discontinue the unfair trade practice; Rs.10,00,000/-; Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost. Complainants are husband and wife and OP is Signatures Linkers Pvt. Ltd.
- It is stated by the complainants that they were induced to take the membership of the OP as it was represented by the OP that their two resorts are four/five star category properties and that the complainants would be provided special package to stay for 3N/4D which was in addition to 6N/7D every year for ten years for the rest of the associated properties of the OP. Copy of the photographs which were shown to the complainants of the two resorts are still available on the website of the OP and are annexed as annexure C-2. The list of associated hotels, resorts including two resorts at Jim Corbett and Manali was provided by the OP to complainants vide email dated 05.06.2019 which is annexed as annexure C-3 (colly).
- Complainants were impressed by the photographs of Jim Corbett resorts for two reasons that the surroundings interior looked beautiful and its proximity to Delhi and took the membership from OP at Rs.1,55,000/- apart from AMC with was to be paid at Rs.8,500/- per year. OP also gave an option to the complainants to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.70,000/- as AMC charges for ten years in one go and avail the discount of Rs.1,500/- per year. Accordingly, complainants paid Rs.1,55,000/- as membership fees and Rs.70,000/- as one time AMC for the entire period of ten years.
- OP then asked the complainants to sign a pre-drafted agreement without explaining the terms and conditions thereof and the OP induced the complainants to sign the agreement stating that the discount on AMC was about to expire. It is stated that the said agreement is wholly arbitrary, one side and unreasonable. The copy of the agreement dated 15.01.2019 is annexed as annexure C-4 (colly).
- It is stated by the complainant that their misery started on 13.07.2021 when they requested the OP to book the resort at Jim Corbett wherein the check in date was provided as 28.08.2021 and their check out was 30.08.2021 which goes to show that booking was done much in advance. Copy of the email dated 13.07.2021 is annexed as annexure C-5.
- It is stated that the complainants through their son reminded OP via email on 17.07.2021 for update and confirmation and since they had not availed services of the OP for three years therefore they requested the OP for two rooms. OP vide email dated 04.08.2021 confirmed booking of two rooms on 28.08.2021 to 30.08.2021 at Jim Corbett. Copy of the said email is annexed as annexure C-6.
- It is stated that once reached complainants were shocked to notice that the resort was not same as represented by OP which induced complainants to immediately call up the Delhi office of OP who told the complainants that if they were unhappy about the property they can drive back to Delhi or look for another accommodation at their own cost and expense.
- Since the complainants were left with no other choice having driven to Jim Corbett, decided to stay in the same resort as made available to them by OP. It is stated that the experience was horrible and they were treated by the staff as “free and complementary guests” and paid no attention to the needs of the complainants. It is further stated that while driving back complainants confronted one of the locals with the photographs of the resort which were shown at the time of taking of membership and it was informed by the locals that the photographs were of another resort. The photographs on the website of the OP depicting that resort to be the one of OP is annexed as annexure C-7 (colly). Complainants then found out that resort was one of “Maya Resorts”. It is stated by the complainants that a fraud has been committed by the OP in representing that Maya Resort to be OP’s own resort but that resort has nothing to do with OP.
- Complainants on reaching Delhi tried to contact the staff of the OP seeking refund but their requests have fallen on deaf ears. Complainants requested the OP for refund but the OP did not want to meet much less return money of the complainant.
- It is stated that OP is liable to compensate the complainant not just for financial loss but also for mental pain and agony which the complainants had to undergo.
- Complainant has placed on record copy of the photographs of the website of the OP showing the picture of a resort. Complainant has also placed on record list of hotels, agreement dated 15.01.2019 as also payment receipts. Complainant has email dated 17.07.2021 wherein OP had informed the complainants that on the requisite dates Aura Resort, Jim Corbett was not available. Complainant has placed on record Maya Forest Resort having same pictures on its website as that of OP.
- OP, in their reply have stated that the complainant is not maintainable as the complainants have entered into the agreement dated 15.01.2019 after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement and are now wanting to back out without any justifiable reasons. It is further stated that complaint has intricate question of law and facts and requires witnesses to be examined therefore this forum is not a proper jurisdiction.
- It is denied by OP that it represented to the complainants of providing accommodation services in hotels/resorts in India and across the globe including two hotels/resorts as stated by the complainants.
- It is further denied by the OP that they induced the complainants by giving any false representation. It is stated that complainants have themselves entered into an agreement after getting fully satisfied on 15.01.2019.
- It is stated that the OP has not indulged in deficiency in service and in fact, the OP has acceded to the request of the complainants for booking two rooms on Jim Corbett and for this reason Aura Resort at Jim Corbett was provided by the OP. The holiday confirmation voucher is annexed as annexure R-1 therefore there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. It is further stated that the complainants never reached the booked destination as per the holiday confirmation booking voucher dated 04.08.2021. It is further denied by the OP that the complainants strongly protested any act of cheating of the OP and that there is there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of OP. With respect to Maya Resort, it is stated by the OP that the said resort was not mentioned in the list provided to the complainants by the OP. OP has completely denied that they induced the complainants in buying their membership by publishing misleading advertisements and by showing two photographs of Maya Resort as their own resort.
- In their rejoinder, complainants have denied the averments of the reply stating they are bundle of lies being vague and specious. Complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint. It is stated that when complainants reached Aura Resort as per booking voucher dated 04.08.2021they realised that it was not same as shown and represented by OP while inducing the complainants to subscribe for its membership.
Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. Complainants relied on judgment passed by this Commission titled Avijeet Kumar Vs. Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd wherein it was held that the existing clauses of the agreement to be one sided. OP has on relied Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr (2000) 1 SCC 66, Dutch Airlines, Indigo Airlines Vs. Kalpana Rani and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849.
Complainant has placed on record the information provided on the website of the OP which also provides the address of the resort in Jim Corbett as “VPO-Semal, Khaliya, Jirna Road, Jim Corbett, Ram Nagar, Distt. Nainital, Uttrakhand-244715. It is also seen that Maya Forest Resort’s address on the website also has the same address. OP has not given any sufficient explanation for not providing their Signature Linkers Resort to the complainant at Jim Corbett as also for not providing explanation as to how the resort of the OP at Jim Corbett and also Maya Resort Jim Corbett have the same address.
It is further seen from the Legal Notice sent by the complainants to the OP that the main grievance of the complainants was that they were not provided the resort that was promised to them at the time of taking of membership. Complainants have claimed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the staff at Aura resort however, the same has not been substantiated. On this account this Commission OP holds guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice and directs OP to refund a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- out of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the complainants. This amount is given as the complainants have used two rooms in one vacation and held the membership from 2019 to 2021. This amount of Rs.1,75,000/- is to be provided to the complainants with interest @6% per annum from August i.e. from the date of legal notice 16.08.2022 within three months from the date of pronouncement of the order failing which the @8%. No other amount is due to the complainants.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
