JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against Respondents/Opposite Parties challenging the impugned Order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, in Appeal bearing No. A/304/2019. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh, in Consumer Complaint No. CC/522/2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant took membership of “Sterling Holidays” on the assurance of Mr. Mohit Sharma, representative of the Opposite Party that he would be provided with two weeks accommodation at Toronto from 16th July and Mr. Mohit Sharma would also contact the facilitator for VISA and accommodation. Consequently, the Complainant made a down payment of Rs.1,58,565/- on 01.02.2018, and the balance through two post-dated cheques bearing Nos. 847734 payable on 07.02.2019, and 847732 payable on 07.02.2020. The Complainant received an E-kit through Email on 24.02.2018 bearing his membership ID and E-kit ID No. 1237989. However, he was informed in the first week of May that the accommodation could not be provided on the place and date of Complainant’s choice and alternate options were given for another place and date. It was stated that the failure of the Opposite Party to honour its commitment resulted in increased the costs of air ticket and hotel booking, thus subsequently increase in the Complainant’s cost of travel. Consequently, the Complainant wanted to end his membership with the Opposite Party. He therefore sent a written request seeking refund and return of post-dated cheques vide letter dated 23.05.2018. However, no information was received from the Mohali office of the Opposite Party and his registered letter sent to the Chennai office was returned undelivered. The Complainant also sought refund via Email, which was denied. It was the case of the Complainant that the requirement of accommodation was projected six months in advance, the booking request was made within two days of applying for membership, and the Opposite Party refused the accommodation after two months. Had it been told to the Complainant that the Opposite Party would be unable to provide accommodation, the Complainant would not have taken the membership or got it cancelled within two days. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party for its failure to honour its commitment. He therefore sought refund of Rs.1,58,565/-, apart from return of the post-dated cheques, Rs.23,000/- spent as additional expenses on Air ticket, and Rs.91,000/- for hotel booking. 3. The Opposite Party resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended by the Opposite Party that the parties were bound by the terms of the Contract and the Complainant could not be granted any relief in contradiction with the Policy terms, and that he was fully aware of the terms of the membership plan before purchasing it. The Complainant has filed the present complaint only to by-pass the Clause No. 12(iv) which speaks about the cancellation mode. It was contended that the Application Form was executed on 02.02.2018 and request for cancellation was made on 23.05.2018, thereby violating the clause No. 12(iv) of the Membership Application Form and the refund of membership fees would be as per the said Clause itself. The period for cancellation as per rules is to be calculated from realization of the amount which was realised on 02.02.2018. It was further contended that the Complainant was duly informed that the booking of a Resort can be done within 120 days and not six months as claimed by him. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with exemplary costs. 4. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 18.11.2019 dismissed the Complaint while observing that the Complainant had violated Clause 12(iv) of the Membership Application Form. Since the request for cancellation was made after a period of 60 days, the refund of membership amount would be according to Clause No. 12(iv) and not as per the demand raised by the Complainant. It was also observed that as per point 13 of the Membership Application Form, the Opposite Parties could not be held liable for Resort Condominium International Exchanges. It was further observed that the Application Form was signed by the Complainant with eyes open and being an educated person, he could not be allowed to wriggle out of the same. 5. Aggrieved by the above Order, Appeal bearing No. A/304/2019 was filed by Appellant/Complainant against the Respondents/Opposite Parties before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. 6. The Ld. State Commission vide impugned Order dated 30.07.2021 dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order of the Ld. District Forum and observed inter alia:- “7. The Appellant/Complainant had executed the Membership Application Form on 02/02/2018; whereas, the request for cancellation was made on 23/05/2018. Clause No.12 (iv) of the Membership Application Form has been violated by the Appellant/Complainant by lodging the request for cancellation after a period f sixty (60) days. Since as per the cancellation rules, the period of cancellation is to be calculated from realization of the deposited amount, which was 02/02/2018, it is apparent that the request for cancellation was made after a period of sixty (60) days and according to the Clause 12(iv) of the Membership Agreement Form, referred to above, the refund of the membership amount will not be permissible. 8. It is relevant to add here that per Key Point No. 13 of the Membership Application Form, the Respondents cannot be held liable/responsible for Resort Condominium International Exchanges, as the Resort Condominium International Exchange is between the Appellant/Complainant and the Resort Condominium International (RCI) only. In this case, the Appellant/ Complainant has duly signed the Membership Application Form fully aware of the above said facts, therefore, the Appellant/Complainant cannot wriggle out of the same. 9. The District Forum – I (now District Commission-I), was, thus right, in holding that the Respondents/Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum – I (now District Commission-I), being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.” 7. Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the above-mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission. 8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for Respondent and Petitioner, party-in-person. Perused the material available on record. 9. The Petitioner has filed his submissions in the form of short notes in compliance with an earlier Order passed on 26.9.2022, with which certain documents in the form of Annexure A-1 to A-5 have been attached, apart from the decision of this Commission in “Original Petition No. 66 of 1992-M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd.” (Annexure-6) and of the Ld. State Consumer Commission, UT Chandigarh, in “FA No. 34 of 2015- Harsharn Singh Bajwa Vs. Country Club India Ltd. and Anr” (Annexure-7). His contentions in a nutshell are summarised as follows- a) That he being a “Corporate Participant”, with the RCI, who was so enrolled as Member by way of his name in a way having been sponsored by the Respondent-Company, so it was incumbent upon the said Respondent to ensure that his preferred booking was to be secured from the RCI; b) That in any event, in view of the assurances given to him on behalf of the Respondent-Company, which it failed to honour, he was well within his right to seek cancellation of his Membership without facing any adverse consequences such as by way of deduction in any amount paid by him for his Membership; and, c) That the conditions being quoted on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite Party to resist his claim were not explained to him, and were printed in very tiny font, which made the same to be practically illegible, on account of which such conditions would not be binding upon him in view of the decision of this Commission in M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (Supra). 10. To support his contention as noted in Item (a) in the preceding para, the Petitioner has drawn attention to the definition of “Corporate Participant”, as mentioned in the relevant Rules of “STERLING HOLIDAYS VACATION OWNERSHIP POINTS RULES- TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, Item 1- INTRODUCTION, Clause 1.2 - RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership which provides- “1.2 Corporate Participant” refers to a Member whose fees for an enrolment and renewal are paid to RCI by an entity or organisation with which RCI has a contractual agreement to offer the RCI Exchange Programme and not by the Member themselves.” The Petitioner’s reasoning therefore is that since his Membership/affiliation with the RCI was not independent, but as a “Corporate Participant” enrolled through the Respondent/Opposite Party, so the obligation fell on the said Opposite Party itself to secure his booking. 11. The above submission is not convincing in view of the specific condition contained in Item 18(d) & (e) of the Original Application Form, which provides – “18.d. This RCI Exchange facility is by virtue of the contract between RCI and the Company’s Customer. The Customer shall abide by all rules, regulations, guidelines, conditions, modifications etc., as may be prescribed by RCI from time to time. The liability and responsibility of Company in respect of RCI Exchanges is only to the extent of enrolling during the initial enrolment term and Customer agrees to the same. It is clearly understood that RCI Exchange/Holiday is subject to availability of RCI destinations and is a matter purely between the Customer and RCI for which Company shall not be liable or responsible in any manner whatsoever. e. The company is not responsible for availability, confirmation or quality of exchanges availed by the customer through RCI.” 12. Although admittedly, the aforesaid two extracts pertaining to the concept of “Corporate Participant” as also the Clause 18.d. virtually doing away with the liability of the Opposite party for the purpose of RCI booking, are printed in an extremely fine font which is not readable by a person with normal eye-sight, still the Petitioner cannot do away with Clause 13 of the salient points mentioned in his own Application Form, which is on record, and which provides- “13. I/We understand that my/our Enrollment with Resort Condominium International through the Company is for a period of 2 years 9Promotional Offer) only. Subsequently, the necessary fees for renewal of Resort Condominium International Enrollment shall be paid by me/us directly to Resort Condominium International. All Resort Condominium International exchanges shall be handled through Resort Condominium International and not the Company and all applicable exchange fees are payable to Resort Condominium International for availing the Resort Condominium International exchange. I/We confirm that Company shall not be liable or responsible for Resort Condominium International Exchanges and Resort Condominium International Exchange is between me/us and Resort Condominium International only.” 13. The aforesaid Clause 13 which is a part of the Petitioner’s own Membership Agreement with the Opposite Party (Exh. OP/1) is certainly very easily readable by any person with normal eye-sight, especially since the same is in a printed form. For this reason, there would appear to be no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Fora below to the effect that the Petitioner/Complainant had himself entered into such Agreement after having been fully aware of the Clause No. 13, which limited liability of the Opposite Party qua RCI. 14. Furthermore, it is also not only verified that the aforesaid Clause 13 of the Membership Agreement is easily legible, but also in view of the explanation of “Corporate Participant” by the Opposite Party according to which, the Member so enrolled through the Opposite Party, has to pay no fees for such Membership for the first two years, after which he would have to seek extension by payment of the requisite fees, in case he wishes to continue with such Membership of RCI. The bottom line therefore is that as per the specified conditions, the only concession on behalf of the Respondent/ Opposite Party was limited to the extent that Membership/affiliation with the RCI, of the Complainant would have to be “free” of any enrolment fees or such similar charges, for the first two years, after which he would be required to pay such fees, in case he intended to continue with such Membership. But there is no such condition which could show that at any stage the Opposite Party had shown itself to be liable for actually securing the Complainant’s booking with the RCI. For that purpose, it was incumbent upon the Complainant/Petitioner himself to directly approach the RCI for his booking, after having received his Welcome-Kit for that purpose. 15. It has been specifically denied by the Respondent/Opposite Party in Para 9 of its Reply on Merits against the Original Complaint, wherein it has been specifically mentioned – “It is denied that any assurance was made beyond the terms”. Now, as already seen, none of the terms and conditions officially notified on behalf of the Opposite Party go to show that it had any responsibility to secure the booking of the Complainant/Petitioner in Toronto through RCI and it has also categorically denied that any such assurance beyond the printed terms was given from its side. The Petitioner has placed on record his entire What’s App chat with Mr. Mohit, a representative of the Respondent-Insurance Company, as enclosure 14 with his original complaint. A full reading of the entire transcribed conversation goes to show that there was no explicit assurance by Mr. Mohit for obtaining the Complainant’s booking in Toronto. Clearly, where the rights and obligations of the parties are contained in a documentary form, the averment to the effect that some assurance was given in spite of existence of such documents is not to be accepted at its face value, especially in view of the specific denial on the part of the Opposite Party/Respondent. This principle is also recognised even under Sections 91 and 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provide that where certain terms and conditions have been reduced to writing by the parties, no oral evidence on such terms and conditions ought to be taken. 16. In view of the reasons noted in the preceding paragraphs, this Commission finds no infirmity in the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below, which had gone against the Petitioner/Complainant, no grounds are therefore made out to interfere with the impugned Orders. 17. The Revision Petition is, therefore dismissed. No orders as to costs. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. | 
