Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/5/2015

Ankush Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory, Magic Holidays, The Panoramic Holidays Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/05/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	02 /01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	07/12/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ankush Sharma s/o Late Sh. Chand Kishore, House No. 3455, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

1. The Authorized signatory, Magic Holidays, The Panoramic Holidays Ltd., Corporate office:- Khatau House, Basement, Plot No.401/411, Mogul Lane, Behind Johnson & Johnson Co. Mahim (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 016.

 

2. The Authorized Officer, Panoramic Holidays Ltd. SCO No.120-121, Second Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

3. The Manager/Authorized Signatory, Magic Holidays, SCO 491, Second Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, Near Burger Girl.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person
For OPs (OP No.1 ex-parte)	:	Sh. Chetan Gupta, Advocate

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was offered free gift voucher by the Opposite Parties on attending the presentation of their Company’s Scheme, which was attended by the complainant. In the said presentation, the complainant was offered Holiday Scheme of Rs.1,57,500/- plus yearly AMC charges, which was not accepted by the complainant. Thereafter, the Manager of the Opposite Parties offered the complainant a short period promotional scheme, under which on deposit of Rs.15,750/-,  the Opposite Parties company was offering 6 nights and 7 days holiday package at the destinations of the company for proving their services/hospitality. On the assurance of the Opposite Parties, the complainant accepted the said offer, and deposited Rs.15,750/- on 22.12.2013 and also gave four cheques. It has been alleged that thereafter the complainant received a telephonic message from Mumbai office of the Opposite Parties to deposit 25% money of Rs.1,57,500/- to avail the facility, though the said scheme was not opted by the complainant. The complainant only opted for promotional offer of Rs.15,750/- for 6 nights and 7 days. The complainant took the matter with Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties, who in resistance of the complainant, gave him a voucher of country club Gift Voucher instead of magic holidays as according to them at that point of time the package of magic holiday was not available. As such they escaped from their liability by giving voucher of another company.  Thereafter the complainant received a booklet of the Opposite Parties on 22.1.2014 through which he came to know about the condition of termination. According to this booklet the complainant was allotted membership, which the complainant never opted against Rs.15,750/-. The complainant asked the Opposite Parties to refund the deposited amount but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the instant complaint has been filed.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 23.02.2015.

 

3.                 Opposite Parties filed joint reply (though Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded exparte) stating therein that the complainant took blue studio membership of the opponent at a price of Rs.1,57,500/- and had paid only a down payment of Rs.15,750/- in cash and balance was agreed to be paid by the complainant in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.3945/- each.  All the terms and conditions of the scheme were duly explained to the complainant, only then he signed the membership form and paid down payment of Rs.15,750/-. It has been denied that the company launched promotional offer of Rs.15,750/ for 6 nights and 7 days. It has also been denied that the Opposite Parties gave voucher of Country Club to the complainant, which is not even in the name of the complainant. It has been averred that the complainant is not entitled for refund as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.                 The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

7.      There is no dispute that the Complainant signed the membership form and paid the amount of Rs.15,750/-. Membership form is produced on record. The same is not challenged by the Complainant. The payment was made in cash. There appears to be no force on the Complainant for payment of the membership fee.

 

8.      The Opposite Parties have miserably failed to produce on record a copy of the terms and conditions duly signed by the Complainant. The Complainant received the booklet of the Opposite Parties containing the terms and conditions on 22.01.2014 through which the Complainant came to know about the condition of termination within a free look in period of 10 days. After going through the said terms and conditions the Complainant immediately applied for the refund of the amount deposited with the Opposite Parties on 24/28.1.2014 (Annexure C-4). The Opposite Parties have also failed to produce the record of the telephone calls to get confirmation about the signing of such holiday package. The free look in period of 10 days starts from the date of receipt of the terms and conditions i.e. 22.1.2014. In these set of circumstances, we are of firm view that when the Complainant promptly (within 10 days) informed the Opposite Parties of his desire to withdraw from the Scheme and requested for refund of the amount, the same should have been refunded to him. Therefore, refusal to refund the amount of Rs.15,750/- to the Complainant certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that 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 Rs.15,750/- to the Complainant paid by him.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[c]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

10.      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 amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

11.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

07^th December 2015                            

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER