Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/479/2016

Amarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sterling Holidays Resourts (india) Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/479/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	01/07/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17/03/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Amarjit Singh S/o Late Harbhajan Singh, R/o H.No.612, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh.

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

1.   Sterling Holidays Resourts (India) Limited, through its Managing Directors, Citi Towers, 3^rd Floor, No.7, 3^rd Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600020, Tamil Nadu.

 

2.   Mr. Prince Kumar, Senior Executive, Customer Acquisition, Sterling Holidays Resourts Limited, SCF 63-64, 1^st Floor, Phase-10, above Reliance Fresh, Mohali – 160062.

 

3.   Mr. Amit Chaudhry, Senior Executive, Sterling Holidays Resourts Limited, SCF 63-64, 1^st Floor, Phase-10, above Reliance Fresh, Mohali – 160062.

 

……… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR          MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OPs	:	Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, allured by the various benefits/ incentives projected by the representatives of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant took the Membership of the Opposite Parties by paying Rs.27,605/- through his HDFC Credit Card. It has been alleged that when the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to confirm his booking for Kufri Resort from 25^th to 27^th March, the Opposite Parties failed to book the same citing the excuse of over booking. Thereafter, again the Complainant submitted fresh booking dates for Ooty from 12^th June to 15^th June, but to no success. Eventually, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to cancel his Membership and refund the earnest money. In response whereof, the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant vide Annexure C-5 that as per terms & conditions, no amount would be refunded towards cancellation. However, on 07.06.2016, the Complainant was shock to learn that the Opposite Parties withdrew an amount of Rs.7959/- from his credit card on 7.5.2016. The Complainant immediately wrote to the credit card helpline for reversal of amount, with a copy to the Opposite Parties, but nothing concrete was done by the Opposite Parties to redress his grievance. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that availing holidays was subject to fulfillment of certain terms & conditions of the contract which both the Complainant and the answering Opposite Parties entered into. The Complainant failed to perform his part of the Contract and therefore he was unable to avail the holidays. As per Rule 5(a) (iii) of the Membership Rules, a Member could avail the holidays with the Opposite Party No.1 only after 17 months in case of 10% down payment and EMI realizations. It has been asserted that the Complainant himself gave the mandate for deduction of the EMI, pursuant to which the EMI was deducted. Since the Complainant himself breached the terms of contract, he is not entitled to get refund as per term and condition of the contract entered. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      The main grouse of the Complainant in the present case is that despite paying an amount of Rs.27,605/- towards the membership fee, the Opposite Parties failed to confirm the booking, which the Complainant was seeking in the month of March citing the reasons of over booking. Similarly, on one more such occasion, the request of the Complainant for booking in the month of June was again not acceded to by the Opposite Parties. Eventually, being unsatisfied with the response of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant sought refund of the amount paid.

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Complaint. It has been alleged by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant was a defaulter in paying the installments and also he has not paid full membership fee as per the terms and conditions governing the membership.    

 

9.      The first question which falls for consideration is as to whether the present Complaint is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum or not? Answer to this is affirmative. As per the case of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties arranged a meeting at Hotel J.W. Marriot, Sector 35, Chandigarh for the purpose of introducing their Membership Scheme. Further, as per Complainant’s credit card statement (Annexure C-1) an amount of Rs.27,605/- was paid to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and thereafter, as per Annexure C-9 further an amount of Rs.7959/- was paid to Opposite Party No.1 from the Complainant’s bank account situated at Chandigarh. Therefore, the present Complaint very well lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

 

10.      From perusal of e-mail Annexure C-3 dated 17.4.2016, it is clear that the Complainant, in the month of April, on being unsatisfied with the services of the Opposite Parties, requested for the refund of the membership fee, followed by various other such mails. Thereafter, Annexure C-5 is an e-mail by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant stating that there would be no refund towards the cancellation of his membership in view of the large amount he had to lose. They accordingly requested the Complainant to reconsider his decision to cancel the Membership. Interestingly, Annexure C-9 is the bank statement of the Complainant showing the withdrawal of Rs.7959/- on 07.05.2016 by the Opposite Parties, despite the fact that the present matter was already in dispute owing to the poor services of the Opposite Parties. We are of the opinion that this is the height of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties for withdrawing the aforesaid amount, without taking the consent of the Complainant, especially when they themselves offered the Complainant to reconsider whether he wanted to continue with the disputed Membership or not. Further, Annexure C-6 & C-7 are again e-mails of the same kind with a request for the refund of the membership fee sent by the Complainant. Importantly, on the one hand, through Annexure C-8 dated 25.4.2016, the Opposite Parties promised the Complainant for correct and deserving redressal of his grievance, but on the other hand, without seeking his consent as to whether he is interested to continue with the Membership, the Opposite Parties withdrew the amount of the next EMI as discussed above.      

 

11.      The Opposite Parties have relied upon Rule 12 of the Sterling Holidays Vacation Ownership Point Rules (SHVOPR), which deals with cancellation of the SHVOP by the Customer and Refund Norms. Rule 12 (iii) of the aforesaid Rule reads as under:-

 

“12.(iii) If the receipt of cancellation request is between 11 to 60 days from the date of D.P. Realization

     1.   Cancellation fee will amount to 25% of the Admission Fee. The balance, after deduction of the above Cancellation fee, if any, paid by the customer and realized by the Company will be refunded within 60 days from the date of Cancellation by the Company after deducting:-

     a]   Cost of holidays availed

b]   Cost of promotional offer/gifts issued

c]   RCI enrollment fee

d]   Any other expenses incurred by the Company to service the customer.”

 

          But, we feel that the Opposite Parties miserably failed to perform their obligation as per their own promise to the Complainant in providing holidays. Hence, abovementioned unilateral terms and conditions can not be made applicable in the present case. Moreover, the Opposite Parties never raised any issue with regard to the paid money as part of membership fee which they have raised during the proceedings of the present case only. There is no message/e-mail/SMS etc. on record which proves that due to less paid amount, the Complainant could not be offered the holidays. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-providing proper services to the Complainant in the form of booking of holidays and then non-redressing his request for cancellation of the membership and also debiting an amount of Rs.7959/- without taking the consent of the Complainant as to whether he is interested to continue with their membership or not [as the same was in dispute since a long time], proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant. As the Opposite Parties used his hard earned money for a long time without offering him any incentive/benefit. This carelessness on the part of the Opposite Parties only forced the Complainant to knock the doors of this Forum in the absence of justice. Who knows how many gullible consumers are being harassed by the Opposite Parties in this manner. It is the duty of the Opposite Parties being service provider to provide appropriate services to its customers/consumers.

 

12.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]    To refund the amount of Rs.27,605/- + Rs.7959/- = Rs.35,564/- paid by the Complainant;

 

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

 

13.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th March, 2017                                            

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 “Dutt”