Haryana

Karnal

CC/41/2016

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sterling Holiday Resorts India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gagan Sehgal

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.41 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 04.02.2016

                                                         Date of decision:14.03.2018

 

Satnam Singh son of Sardar Amarjeet Singh resident of House no.9, Prem Nagar, Karnal.

                                                                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. Sterling Holiday Resorts India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office:- no.7, City Towers, 3^rd Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar Cheenai-600020, Tamil Naidu, through its Director.

2. Sterling Holiday Resorts India Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office SCS 63-64, Phase-10 above Reliance Fresh Hotel Saroa, Mohali, Punjab through its Branch Head.

                                          

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri Gagan Sehgal Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Amit Gupta Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that on August 2015, the officials of the OP has called the complainant on his mobile no.90685-13200 and told him that the mobile number of the complainant had redemnly selected as the OP had a free Holiday voucher and also having good holiday plans for the family of the complainant as the OP had invited the complainant alongwith his family at Hotel Gold, Model Town, Karnal. Complainant alongwith his wife went to Hotel Gold, Model Town, Karnal where the executive of OP namely Mr. Vivek and Brijesh met the complainant and explained their Holiday vouchers/plans. They told the complainant that they have a Holiday Voucher worth Rs.40,000/- which would be used by the complainant with his family in resorts of the OP in all over world for 27 nights and the resorts of the OPs are having five star facilities and the complainant would enjoy his package for three years in the resorts of the OP and also explained that the complainant should not to pay anything to the resorts. The complainant accepted the offer of the complainant and paid Rs.24770/- to the OPs and then OPs have given a membership no.018016396 to the complainant. OPs have also given a free gift voucher to the complainant to spend three nights at Mussoorie in the resorts of the OP. If the complainant will not satisfy with the Hospitality/facilities of the resort, then the complainant having right to cancel the said package and to pay back the entire amount of the complainant. In the mid of the month of August, 2015 the complainant alongwith his family went to Mussoorie, but the facilities and hospitality were very poor, it was very normal and third class resort. The official of the resort charged Rs.850/- plus taxes poer member every day for per three days separately dinner, breakfast and lunch means 850X3=2550/- per member whereas it was free gift voucher. On 29.8.2015, the complainant sent an email to the OP and requested to cancel his package/membership since the complainant was not satisfied with the facilities of the resorts, then the OPs had replied that they would cancel the membership and would return the money i.e. Rs.24,770/- very soon, but all in vain. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that OPs no.1 and 2 never promised holiday/stay in the resort of the OPs no.1 and 2, however, as a goodwill gesture issued voucher which can be availed after complying terms and conditions of the voucher. Voucher was only limited to accommodation and not fooding and this material fact was clearly informed to the complainant moreover the maximum stay which can be availed on the complementary voucher is three days for two adults and two children below twelve years. Complainant was informed about the membership plan of the OPs no.1 and 2 in the product educational programme which was organized by OPs no.1 and 2. It is further submitted that complainant after enjoying holidays with the OPs want to gain from the situation by cancelling the membership. It is further submitted that the OPs Mussoorie resort is one of the best rated resort of the area as far as charging money is concern the OPs only charges the application tax and not lodging charges which is very high. It was clearly informed to the complainant that the complainant has to bear the taxes and would be liable to pay for the food bill. It is further submitted that the complainant has not complied the clause no.4.12 of the Membership Application Form, therefore, it is clear that the complainant is trying to mislead court and extort money from the OPs. Moreover, the complainant never wanted to continue the membership programme of the OPs, therefore, on one pretext or the other is trying to cancel the membership by framing false and wrong charges.  Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 8.5.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Tushar Verma Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 12.2.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleading and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the OPs called the complainant on his mobile and told about having good Holiday Plan for the complainant and his family. It is also not disputed that the complainant accepted the offer of OPs and filled the customer application form copy of which is Ex.R3. The plan price was Rs.1,98,160/- and the complainant paid Rs.24,777/-. The OPs have given a membership no.018016396 to the complainant. The OPs had also given a free gift voucher to the complainant for three nights at Mussoorie. The complainant alongwith his family went to Mussoorie and stayed in the resort of OPs for three days.

7.             It is alleged by the complainant that despite free gift voucher, the OPs had charged for food Rs.850/- per member per day plus taxes but the complainant has not claimed these amounts. It is further alleged that the complainant was not satisfied with the hospitality of the OPs at Mussoorie  so he made an e-mail to the OPs requesting for cancellation of his package/membership and request for refund for Rs.24770/- but the OPs have not refunded the same.

8.             On the other hand, the OP contended that the complainant after enjoying Holidays with the OPs want to gain from the situation by cancelling the membership and the complainant did not want to abide by the terms and conditions of the membership application form executed by the complainant. It is further contended that the Mussoorie resort of the OPs is one of the best resort and the OPs had not charged for the lodging charges which were very high. It is further contended that the complainant did not want to continue the membership programme of the OPs and trying to cancel the membership on one pretext or the other.

9.             From the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is that whether the complainant can cancel the membership or not. In this regard the OPs have placed the photostat copy of the Sterling Holidays Vacation Ownership Plan (SHVOP) Terms and Conditions. The OPs could not point out any terms and conditions that the complainant cannot cancel the membership whereas on the other hand the complainant pointed out the condition no.12 which deals with cancellation of the SHVOP by the customer and refund norms. According to this condition any request for cancellation by the customer shall be valid only if made by the Primary Applicant in writing either by letter, email or fax and its receipt duly acknowledged by the authorized representative of the company. According to the cancellation condition if the request was made within 10 days then 100% of the money was to be refunded within 60 days from the date of cancellation by the company. If the request was made between 11 to 60 days then the cancellation fee will amount to 25% of the admission fee and the balance after deduction of cancellation fee, if any, paid by the customer will be refunded within 60 days. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not mentioned any date in his complaint that when he had got the membership and when he had made request for cancellation. At the time of arguments the complainant has moved an application for additional evidence, vide which he wants to produce the copies of e-mails dated 1^st September 2015 sent by the OPs to the complainant vide which they admitted about acceptance of email of the complainant. No doubt the application of the complainant has been dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2018 but from the email it is clear that the complainant had made request for cancellation of his membership. At the time of argument the complainant stated that at the most his request can be treated between 11 to 60 days and this contention of the complainant has force and the OPs have also not disputed the same. The learned counsel for OPs made a request as the complainant had enjoyed three days in their costly resort the cost of promotional offer/gifts issued may also be deducted from the balance amount and the OPs have referred clause 12(a)2(b). The learned counsel for OPs also referred documents Ex.R1 that though there is no evidence for the charges of the rooms of the resorts but from Ex.R1, it is clear that Rs.1000/- was the charges of extra bed and the complainant and his family has spent three days in their resort so Rs.2000/- per day for two beds be deducted from the amount paid by the complainant.  Both the parties are bound by  these terms and conditions Ex.R2.  The contention of OPs has force and the amount of Rs.6000/- for three days is also liable to be deduction from the amount paid by the complainant. The OPs have even not refunded the remaining amount after deducting these charges and 25% cancellation fee, therefore, the OPs are deficient.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay Rs.12578/-to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5500/- on account of mental agony harassment and litigation charges. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.03.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                              Member