Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/299/2019

Ajay Poddar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sterling Holidays Resorts Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	299 of 2019
Date of Institution	06.12.2019
Date of Decision	23.02.2022

 

 

Ajay Poddar son of Sh. Ram Balak Poddar, aged about 40 years, r/o House No.304, Sector 17 Panchkula. 

     …..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sterling Holidays Resorts Ltd., SCO 186-187, Sector 8C, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.
2. The Principal Officer, M/s Sterling Holidays Resorts Ltd., SCO 63–64, 1^st Floor, Landmark: Above Reliance Fresh, Phase-X, Mohali.
3. M/s Sterling Holidays Resorts Limited, City Tower, No.7, 3^rd Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, 3^rd floor, Landmark: Nalli Silks, Adyar, Chennai- 600020. 

                                    …..Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants.

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.                 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.11.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh, now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, at preliminary stage, with no order as to cost, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant had taken membership of Opposite Parties on 19.03.2017, whereby they offered to arrange holidays stay in 5-Star resorts, for which he was required to make first down payment of Rs.85,557/- and thereafter, one year EMI of Rs.10,695/- per month starting from March, 2018.  It was stated that the complainant made the payment of Rs.85,557/- to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to book three rooms for him and his family members at Goa in June 2019. It was further stated that when complainant and his family members reached Goa on 20.06.2019, he found many deficiencies in the rooms provided like there was dirt outside the rooms, room service was very poor, location of resort was in a narrow street, there was no cleaning near the swimming pool, there was nothing called activity, there were many mosquitoes in the room etc. The complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that on 03.11.2019 the complainant had lost credit card, but, the Opposite Parties had debited the amount of Rs.16,085/- from his credit card without his consent and report thereof was lodged regarding missing credit card. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to cancel the membership and refund the amount, but, they failed to do so. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed.
3. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
4. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, dismissed the complaint, at the preliminary stage, as stated above. 
5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 19.11.2019.
6. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
7. After giving our thoughtful consideration and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
8. On going through the record of learned District Commission, we find that the Commission has dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant, which this Commission finds it in order with the following reasons.
9. The appellant had miserably failed to provide the appropriate documents to establish his grievance, i.e. the terms and conditions of agreement entered into between both the parties, the documents to show whether the membership amount is refundable or not and also the bench mark for providing the services by the respondent company. Further, the complainant has also stated that the respondent has debited Rs.16,085/- via his credit card and for which, this Commission cannot not find any basis from the records. The learned District Commission found the said consumer complaint is not admitable and proceeded to dismissed the same at preliminary stage itself. This Commission is inclined to fall in line with the order passed by the District Commission and hence, the appeal stand dismissed.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
11. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

23.02.2022

                                                                            Sd/-

                         [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

                                                                             Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                      [RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

Gp