Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/599

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sterling Holidays - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Sharma adv

08 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 599 dated 03.10.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 08.03.2022. 

 

Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal resident of House No.46-C, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Jamalpur, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Sterling Holidays Resort Ltd., Regd. Office: Citi Tower No.7, 3^rd Cross Street Floor, Kasturia Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600020 through its Director/M.D.                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer                                      Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sunil Sharma, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. R.S. Dhanda, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that in the month of July 2017, the complainant along with his wife met with executives of the OP, namely Ajay and Vishal Kumar, at Hotel Reddison Blue, Ludhiana. The said employees of the OP induced the complainant to become a member of the OPs. The complainant was told that he would have to deposit Rs.3,45,129/-  and against the membership, the OPs would provide luxury services to the complainant in terms of providing stay in a luxury hotel with the facilities of private room, private kitchen and one attendant/chef who would prepare meals as per wish of the complainant. The OP further induced the complainant that they would provide 7 days foreign trip to the complainant through RCI. As a result of inducement, the complainant became a member and paid a sum of Rs.1,06,795/- out of which a sum of Rs.26,795/- was paid through credit card of State Bank of India and Rs.80,000/- through cheque No.881828. The OP further obtained two advance cheques of Rs.1,21,167/- each from the complainant. However, despite having received the hefty amount from the complainant, the OP miserably failed to provide quality services, as promised.

2.                It is further alleged in the complaint that in the month of August 2017, the complainant went for a trip to Goa and stayed at Panjim Resort, Goa. It was a worst experience for the complainant as no facility of kitchen or cook was provided to the complainant. The rooms provided were also very small and were of poor quality. On return from Goa, the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP and they felt sorry. Thereafter, the complainant along with his family and friends availed  a trip to Kufri. Again, the OP did not provide any private kitchen or cook to the complainant and the rooms provided were also very small and of poor quality. The complainant and his family had to cook food on road and he was humiliated in front of his friends. Another complaint was lodged with the OP in this regard, but they again made lame excuses. The complainant further booked a trip for Niagara Falls through the OP. It was specifically asked by the complainant that the hotel for stay should be near Niagara Falls. The said booking was made by the complainant for his brother as a surprise gift. However, when the brother of the complainant visited Canada, again no quality services were provided to him. The hotel where the stay arrangements were made by the OP was situated from 1½ hours by road from Niagara Falls due to which the complainant suffered a lots of harassment. On return of the brother of the complainant from Canada, the complainant had to face a lot of embarrassment in front of his brother due to poor services provided by the OP.  As a result, the complainant stopped payment of cheques No.881830 and 881829 issued to the OPs. A legal notice dated 01.08.2018 was also served upon the OP through Sh. Sunil Sharma, Advocate calling upon the OP not to present the cheques and to refund the amount of Rs.1,20,795/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the harassment and embarrassment caused to the complainant, but of no avail. Hence the complaint, whereby it has been requested that the OP be directed not to present the cheques and to refund the amount of Rs.1,20,795/- along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and the same has been field with sole intention of harming the reputation and goodwill of the OP company and to make a wrongful gain for the complainant. According to the OPs, the reliefs claimed by the complainants are contrary to express terms and conditions of the membership plan and the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant himself showed  interest in the product of the OP. Thereafter, proper explanation of the product with each and every detail was given to the complainant and he voluntarily got interested in the membership plan of the OP and made part payment towards membership on 28.07.2017. The OP never promised that private kitchen and one attendant/chef would be provided. In fact, in the hospitality industry, no such promises are made nor any such services can be provided by any hotel, resort or a guest house. The complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions of the membership and RCI when he filled the membership application form. It has been denied if any assurance was made beyond the terms of the membership application form. As per the terms, no cancellation request is accepted beyond a period of 61 days and the cancellation fee would amount to 100% of the admission fee. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to avoid clause 12 (IV) of the membership application form. The OP has further pleaded that the complainant enjoyed holiday in two resorts of the OP and best services were provided during his stay at the said resorts at Goa and Kufri which are one of the best resorts of the OP. After enjoying the holidays and availing the services, the complainant now wants to rescind the contract and extract illegal money from the OP which is not permissible under the law. It has further been pleaded that the booking of the holiday in Canada is purely in connection with the RCI  which is a external body and the OP has nothing to do with RCI. Therefore, the OP is not liable for any act and omission of the external body. The OP has further pleaded that if the brother of the OP was facing so much trouble during the holiday in Canada why he continued staying in the resort. Instead he should have vacated the resort immediately. This shows that the complainant only want to rescind the membership application and extort illegal money from the complainant. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant has submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered joint affidavit Ex. OP/B of Sh. Tushar Verma, Assistant Vice President of OP along with documents Ex. OP1/1 to Ex. OP1/3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments on behalf of the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7.                In order to prove the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has simply tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA where the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated. Primarily, the grievance of the complainant is that during his visit to resort at Goa and Kufri, he was not provided with good accommodation and was also not given the facility of a cook or chef and the rooms were provided at these resorts wee very small and not well maintained. The allegation made in this regard seems to be quite vague and ambiguous. Firstly, no such complaint was lodged immediately after the complainant returned from holiday either at Goa or Kufri. The counsel for the complainant has further not been able to refer to any clause in the membership form or any agreement between the parties whereby it might be provided that as per the terms and conditions of the membership, the complainant was entitled to get separate and exclusive chef during the period of his stay. Thus, this contention raised on behalf of the complainant is nothing but a figment of imagination. In fact, no such contract was there between the parties which made the complainant entitled to an exclusive chef during his stay at the resorts.

8.                The second part of the complaint is that the rooms were small and were not appropriate has also not been substantiated. It has not been specified as to how small the rooms were and in what context the facilities provided in the rooms were not of standard and appropriate quality. Thus, the complaint seems to be vague in this regard and the complaint seems to have been filed just for the sake of the complaint and the allegations have not been substantiated by leading cogent or convincing evidence.

9.                As regards the stay of the brother of the complainant in Canada who was sponsored by the complainant under the membership of the OP, it has been alleged by the complaint that the brother of the complainant was made to stay at distant space from Niagara Falls. In this regard also, the complainant has not able to point out any agreement between the parties whereby it might be provided that the complainant would be made to stay near Niagara Falls. The complainant has himself placed on record Ex. C4 which is the Exchange Holiday Confirmation  issued by RCI  (Resorts Condominiums International). In Ex. C4, the facilities at the resort where the brother of the complainant was lodged, has been given in detail and it has been mentioned there in that Niagara Falls is a short daytrip away. Apart from this, it has been mentioned that visit to resort known as Carriage Hills Resort includes a large indoor/outdoor pool, children’s pool, sauna, fitness facilities, indoor/outdoor hot tub, volleyball, basketball, shuffleboard and hiking trails etc., to mention a few. The complainant has further not pointed out any agreement between the parties to the effect that the accommodation near Niagara Falls in terms of distance would be provided. Even otherwise, two hours distance from resort to Niagara Falls cannot be said to be a fair off destination by international standards. Therefore, the grievance raised seems to be is devoid of any merit. As a matter of fact, it appears that the complainant just want to claim back the money even after enjoying as many as three holiday packages and admittedly had already stopped the payment of two cheques of Rs.1,12,167/- each. Therefore, we find that the complaint is baseless and deserves to be dismissed.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              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:08.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Sterling Holidays                              CC/18/599

Present:       Sh. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. R.S. Dhanda, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the 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:08.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.