Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/711/2019

Sanjiv Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rinny Pal Singh Cheema

12 Jun 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/711/2019
Date of Institution	:	16/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	12/06/2020

 

Sanjiv Gupta s/o Late Sh. Rajinder Prasad, aged about 51 years, r/o H.No.502, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., 225A-225B, 2^nd Floor, Vipul Agora, M.G. Road, Gurgaon-122001.

2^nd Address :

The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

2. Girish Ranjan, Branch Head, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
3. Shaktibir Waraich, Takeover Manager, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
4. Sarita, Executive, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Gautam Pathania, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are, on 23.6.2019, on being contacted by OP-4, complainant and his wife were informed to have been short listed and were invited to Hotel Taj, Sector 17, Chandigarh to collect gift vouchers.  Averred, OPs made the offer, complainant had the privilege to stay in 5 star Hotels throughout India and abroad in all OP company and associated properties and list was supplied to him. Certain amount was to be deposited and the service was to be availed of for 14 nights/15 days per year for five years. The entire amount of Rs.1,35,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the OPs. Vouchers were also given which had statedly expired. The complainant on the very next day had informed by way of notice the amount deposited by him may be refunded as he did not want to avail the services offered.  He had sought to cancel the agreement and refund the amount. However, the matter was dilly dallied and the amount was not refunded and slippery offer was made to process the refund after deduction of total 28% of the deposited amount which was not permissive. Alleged, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed their joint written reply. The crux of their reply is, amount of Rs.1,35,000/- was voluntarily deposited to avail the stay for the period as mentioned in the consumer complaint.  Parties had signed the agreement per terms and conditions of the same, in the event of non acceptance of the service within 10 days from the date of deposit, the amount could be refunded on deduction of 28% in toto of the total deposited amount.  Even they were ready to process the refund of the amount after deduction of 28%.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     No rejoinder/rebuttal evidence was filed by the complainant despite availing opportunity.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs, through video conferencing, and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, admittedly the complainant had deposited Rs.1,35,000/- on 23.6.2019 with the OPs to avail the offer of 7 nights/8 days etc. in the hotels throughout India and abroad for five years as per details mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the consumer complaint. It is also the admitted case, on the very next day, complainant had refused to avail the services and prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,35,000/-.  It is also admitted by the OPs, on 24.6.2019 i.e. the next day of the date of deposit letter was received seeking refund of the amount.  However, per terms and conditions of the agreement entered into inter se parties, the amount of 28% was to be deducted and then the refund of the remaining amount was to be processed. 
7.     A perusal of the allegations made in the consumer complaint does not show any fraud was practiced upon the complainant. The complainant had not given the details of the fraud which was allegedly employed by the OPs upon him.  From the perusal of the allegations made in the consumer complaint it appears, complainant either misunderstood the contents of the agreement or did not go through it at the time of deposit of the amount of Rs.1,35,000/-.  However, per record, there are photocopies of the documents which were duly signed by the complainant. The signatures on these documents i.e. agreement etc. not disputed before us. Now it requires detailed evidence in case fraud is needed to be established. These are summary proceedings and detailed evidence is not required to be recorded and the matter is to be disposed of in a slip shod manner after taking into account the affidavits and the deponents are nowhere subjected to cross examination in order to test the veracity of their version given in the form of affidavits.
8.     The complainant himself is an advocate by profession, therefore, it was expected of him to go through the contents of the terms and conditions of the agreement before putting in signatures. It is a settled principle of law, parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement and the Court or the Forum are not possessed with the powers to introduce their own terms and conditions to the agreement. 
9.     As per the agreement, 28% deduction was to be made in the event of cancellation of the agreement so entered inter se parties. The agreement in its entirety was not rescindable as there was an offer, acceptance, consideration and the parties were legally competent to enter into the agreement which amounts to a valid agreement entered inter se the parties and it was not unilaterally revocable. Thus, we hold the complainant was entitled to the refund of 82% of the deposited amount after deduction of 28% as per terms and conditions of the agreement.
10.     Now we shall refer to the act and conduct of the OPs.  On the very next day i.e. 24.6.2019, OPs were informed regarding the cancellation and refund of the amount and even around one year has passed, they had not even processed the 82% refund of the amount as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The OPs had suffered no loss at the hands of the complainant as on the very next day, cancellation letter was sent and the benefit of the deposited amount by way of its circulation is being enjoyed by the OPs and they have time and again lured by way of communication of they being ready to refund 82% of the amount. Had there been bonafides on the part of the OPs, they could have prepared the cheque and filed it with the written reply for its disbursement to the complainant in terms of the agreement. It was a different matter complainant accepted it or not and the dispute qua the deduction of 28% remained to be adjudicated upon. Making false promises time and again and taking no steps for refund of 82% of the deposited amount tantamounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and around one year had already passed in making false promises and no concrete steps were taken to make over 82% of the amount which comes out to Rs.97,200/- after deduction of 28% i.e. Rs.37,800/-
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of Rs.97,200/-to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 24.6.2019 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/06/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President