Punjab

Sangrur

CC/408/2019

Hussan Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Signature the Grand Club - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashish Kumar Grover

09 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 408

 Instituted on:   30.07.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     09.05.2022

 

1. Husan Bansal son of Sh. Kishore Chand Bansal; 2) Kusam Lata wife of Sh. Husan Bansal, residents of H.No.56, Street No.1-A, Ram Basti, Opposite Civil Hospital, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Signature the Grand Club, Signature Linkers Pvt. Ltd. Regd. and Head Office: K-28, Second Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi 110024 through its Managing Director.

2.     Harman Hotel, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant    : Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.              

For  OP No.1             : Exparte.

For  OP No.2             : Shri J.S.Sahni Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Ashish Kumar Grover, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER BY:     

Ashish Kumar Grover, President.

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that on 12.10.2017 the complainant received a telephone call from the representative of OP number 1 and he invited the complainant as guest to join anniversary of OP number 1 at the premises of OP number 2 with an assurance that it will provide free travel voucher of 3 nights/4 days for two adults and two kids. Accordingly, the complainant alongwith his kids visited OP number 1 on 13.10.2017 and the representative of OP number 1 presented about the membership of the OP number 1. The cost of club membership was Rs.63500/- for five years in which that the company will provide in their five star hotels with free breakfast for stay in anywhere in India or abroad per year for 6 nights/7 days for member and his/her spouse alongwith two children and except that 10% discount on air tickets was to be given and further 24 movie tickets were to be provided in the package. It is further averred that on the asking of the OP number 1 the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in cash on 13.10.2017 and the remaining amount of Rs.53,500/- was paid  by the complainant on the next date i.e. 14.10.2017 and by this way the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.63,500/-.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of November, 2017 the complainant approached OP number 1 and requested to book the hotel/resort/villa at Goa from 24.12.2017 to 29.12.2017 but the OP number 1 stated that the complainants could take the benefit of holiday package in the blue season only, but nothing like this was explained at the time of issuance of membership to the complainant.  As such, the complainant requested the OP number 1 to refund the so deposited amount of Rs.63,500/-. It is further averred that when the complainant go through the terms and conditions of the agreement, the same were entirely different as there was a clause that Rs.7500/- will be annual maintenance fee etc. As such, it is stated that the OP number 1 has wrongly withheld the amount of Rs.63,500/- pertaining to the complainant. The complainant even sent email to the OP number 1 and also called on toll free number of OP number 1 for refund of the disputed amount of Rs.63,500/- being not satisfied with the misleading conduct of the representative of OP number 1, but instead of refunding the amount of Rs.63,500/- the OP number 1 extended the period of membership for two years i.e. from 5 years to 7 years without the consent of the complainant.  Even the OP number 1 told the complainants that the package would include the entire family including minor children, but the OP number 1 claimed additional charges for children which is against the said offer of the OP number 1. By this way, the Ops have indulge in unfair trade practice.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP number 1 be directed to refund to complainant an amount of Rs.63,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment and  Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not put appearance despite valid service, as such, OP number 1 was proceeded against exparte.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that OP number 2 has no concern at all with the OP number 1 as the premises of OP number 2 were taken by the OP number 1 only and for which the OP number 2 charged for giving the premises to OP number 1.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto. 

4.             In support of case the complainant tendered into evidence own self declaration affidavit Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 are  copies of letter and agreement with the OP number 1, Ex.C-4 is copy of payment receipt showing receipt of Rs.10,000/- and Ex.C-5 is the copy of membership application and approval form showing the deposit of total amount of Rs.63,500/- with the OP number 1 and closed evidence.

5.             Record shows that OP number 1 was proceeded against exparte and did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence of complainant.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP number 2 and have gone through the record on file. 

7.             In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed self attested affidavit Ex.C-1 and further has produced on record the copy of membership application and approval form, which clearly reveals that the complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.63,500/- with the OP number 1. It is worth mentioning here that this approval form also contains the rubber stamp of OP number 1. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP number 1 has failed to fulfill the requirements as agreed by representative of OP number 1 and even OP number 1 failed to provide the hotel at Goa when demanded by the complainant.  As such, the complainant  sought the refund of the so deposited amount of Rs.63,500/-, but the OP number 1 neither returned the said amount to the complainant nor booked the hotel at Goa.  The Op number 1 chose to remain exparte despite its valid service.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why the OP number 1 did not return the so deposited huge amount of Rs.63,500/- to the complainant as the OP number 1 chose to remain exparte.  Thus, the complainant is clearly successful in proving his case and as such we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 1.

8.             As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party number 1 is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.63,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 14.10.2017 till realization. Further, the opposite party number 1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                May 9, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Ashish Kumar Grover)

                 Member                                          President