DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.127/2018
Mr. Kishori Lal
278 Sector 12
R.K Puram
New Delhi 110022
(New Address)
Flat No.702
Tower F Heritage Max Sector 102,
Gurgaon-122505, Haryana
….Complainant
Versus
The Manager,
Signature Siestas (Linkers) Pvt Ltd.
K 28 IInd Floor Lajpat Nagar II
New Delhi 110024
The Manager Director,
Grand Heritage Vacations,
561 32nd Corss 4th Block,
Jaya Nagar, Bangalore 560011
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 26.04.2018
Date of Order : 12.12.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Succinctly put, complainant took membership from Signature Siestas (Linkers) Pvt Ltd ( OP-1) on 14.08.2014 by paying the consideration amount of Rs.2,30,396/-. Thereafter Complainant received a Welcome Letter from Grand Heritage Vacations ( OP-2).
2. It is stated that complainant asked OP-2 to book a room through DAE in the month of September 2014, April 2015, May 2016 and March, 2017 but OP-2 every time informed the complainant to book a holiday on some other day as the rooms were not available. Complainant vide letter dated 25.05.2017 told OPs that the complainant was telephonically informed by representative of OP-2 that his membership has been terminated and complainant sought refund but to his disappointment the complainant did not receive any positive response from OPs. Dispatch receipts are annexed as Annexure -2.
3. Alleging deficiency of service, complainant prays for direction to OP to apologies for the inconvenience caused to the complainant; to refund the amount of Rs.2,30,396/- paid towards the membership; to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation.
4. OP-1 resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it does not disclose any cause of action and also on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. It is stated that OP-1 is the marketer/agent of OP-2 and as such there is no privity of contract between OP-1 and complainant.
5. It is next stated that OP-1 is not a proper party and has been unnecessary arrayed in the present complaint as OP-2 is liable to provide the holiday package and same is reflected from the certificate of membership . It is also stated that OP-1 never received any letter from the complainant in the year 2017. It is thus prayed that complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
6. OP-2 filed the written version stating inter alia that OP-2 has no privity of contract with the complainant. It is next stated that the complaint is hopelessly time barred as the membership was taken by the complainant in August, 2014 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 26.04.2018. OP-2 in the Written Statement has denied all the averments made in the complaint and submits that OP-2 is giving the best facilities to the satisfaction of their customers .Hence it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed being not maintainable and without any cause of action.
7. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed on behalf of all the parties. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of complainant and OP-1. Ample opportunities were given to OP-2 to file written arguments, however the same were not filed. Submissions made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
8. From the documents placed on record, it is noticed that complainant paid consideration amount of Rs.2,30,396/- to Signature Siestas Pvt Ltd. (OP-1) and received a certificate of membership from Grand Heritage Vacations (OP-2) on 14.08.2014 . As per the certificate of membership Complainant and his wife Ms. Sheela Mahi are the joint owners of the membership and complainants were entitled for one room with maximum of occupancy of four for a period 30 years.
9. It is complainant’s case that despite paying the consideration amount of Rs.2,30,396/- and complainant asking OP-2 to book a room on multiple occasions no room was made available to him. The said averment of the complainant has not been categorically denied by OP-2 . OP-2’s contention that there is no privity of contract with the complainant is outrightly rejected as the Certificate of membership was provided to the complainant by the OP-2 which shows that the complainant was entitled to take holidays in over 4000 world class resorts. The second contention of OP-2 that the complaint is time barred is also rejected as though the membership was taken in August, 2014, it was taken for 30 years therefore the continuing cause of action subsists.
10. As regards OP-1 we are of the opinion that OP-1 after receiving the money cannot wriggle out from the responsibility by saying that it is OP-2 who was liable to provide holidays package and OP-1 is just the marketer/agent of OP-2.
11. In view of the discussion above this commission holds OP-1 and OP-2 to be jointly and severally liable for the obligations and liabilities under the agreement made between the complainant and both the OPs. Accordingly, OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to pay Rs.2,30,396/- @6% p.a jointly and severally from the date of filing of the complaint within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the above stated amount @10% p.a till realization.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
