Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/616

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sterling Holidays - Opp.Party(s)

Sourabh Kumar

11 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:616 dated 08.10.2018                                                Date of decision: 11.02.2022.

 

Sh. Pardeep Kumar son of Sh. Tarsem Chand, Resident of H. No.1754/5, St. No.9, Near Post Office Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

•  

1. Sterling Holidays Resorts Ltd. through its director/manager/authorized person Purva Primus, 4^th Floor, No.236, Okhiyampettai, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai-600097.
2. Sterling Holidays Resorts Ltd. through its director/manager/authorized person SCF 63-64, 1^st Floor (above Reliance Fresh), Phase-10, SAS Nagar, Chandigarh-160062, 0172-5091807.
3. Sterling Holidays Resorts Ltd. through its director/manager/authorized person SCO 121, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.                                                                                                      …..Opposite parties

                             Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Saurabh K. Maheshwary, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh. Rajbir Singh Dhanda, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant availed of a holiday package from the OPs for a period of 25 years for different locations within India as well as abroad. All the dealings were done at Hotel A, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana. At the time of purchase of the package, the OPs agreed to give food voucher worth Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with membership. The OPs issued membership Id No.1237261 after receiving all the payment and assured the complainant that he would soon receive the food vouchers of the value of Rs.25,000/- along with the kit. However, when the complainant received the kit, it did not contain any food vouchers. The complainant contacted the OPs several times, but they kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. One Mr. Ajay Kumar, Manager of Chandigarh office of OP2 assured the complainant that the matter would be resolved on the priority basis. However, the food vouchers were not given to the complainant despite the fact that he requested the OPs many a times. Even a registered notice served upon the OPs through Sh. Saurabh Kumar Maheshwary, Advocate failed to elicit a positive response from the OPs. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and has also caused harassment to the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to give the food vouchers of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and the OPs be further made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with special costs. According to the OPs, the complainant himself was interested in membership plan of the OPs. The request form was filled and signed by the complainant voluntarily. The terms and conditions were explained to the complainant. After purchasing the membership, the complainant availed various holidays on the various resorts of the OP Company but never complained about anything and the claim of food voucher of Rs.25,000/- is nothing but an abuse of process of the court. The OPs never assured the complainant about the issuance of any food voucher nor anything in this regard is mentioned in the membership application form executed by the complainant on 10.12.2017. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C9 and Ex. C5A and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Tushar Varma, authorized representative of OPs closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

6.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is with regard to non-issuance of the food voucher worth Rs.25,000/- which were allegedly promised by the OPs at the time of issuance of the membership. This fact has, however, been denied categorically by the OPs in the written statement saying that the food vouchers of Rs.25,000/- were never promised by them at any point of time nor the same were part of the package of membership. In order to prove that any such promise with regard to food vouchers was made by the OPs, the complainant has not been able to refer to any documentary evidence. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the cheque Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 vide which certain payments were made by the complainant to the OPs at the time of purchasing the membership. Ex. C5 is the Vacation Ownership Plan Certificate issued by the OPs to the complainant. The complainant has further placed on record the letter Ex. C5/A and Sterling Holidays Plan Details Ex. C6 and there is no mention of the fact with regard to issuance of the food vouchers of Rs.25,000/- in any of the documents produced by the  complainant. In the absence of the documentary proof and especially when the details of the plan are mentioned in the documents Ex. C6 and Ex. C7 produced on record by the complainant himself wherein there is no reference of grant of food vouchers of Rs.25,000/-, it has to be held that no such offer was made by the OPs nor the complainant is entitled for the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.02.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Pardeep Kumar Vs Sterling Holidays                              CC/18/616

Present:       Sh. Saurabh K. Maheshwary, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajbir Singh Dhanda, Advocate for OPs.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.02.2022.

Gobind Ram