Haryana

Panchkula

CC/134/2021

DEEPAK SONAK. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BOUTIQUE CLUB, TARANGAN HOLIDAYS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JATIN SAHRAWAT & SAPNA SAHRAWAT.

25 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	134 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	12.02.2021
Date of Decision	:	25.05.2022

 

 

Deepak Sonak, Aged 41 years son of Late Shri Kirti Kumar Sonak, resident of Flat No.601, GH-60, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Private Limited, through its      Managing Directors/Directors, Unit 225 A-B, 2^nd Floor, Vipul      Agora, MG Road, Sector-28, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

2.     Reva Incentives Private Limited, through its Directors, SCO       No.366,  2^nd Floor, Mughal Canal, Karnal-132001, Haryana.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OPs No.1 & 2 already ex parte vide order dated    12.01.2022.

 

ORDER

(Sh. Satpal, President)

1.                The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant received a telephonic call from the executives of the OP No.1 with regard to Seminar for promotion of the Boutique Club. The complainant alongwith his wife attended the seminar, which was organized at hotel wherein the complainant was allured with false offers and the executive of the OP No.1 convinced the complainant to buy a three years package @ Rs.55,000/- and also assured that the complainant will get four nights five days free stay at the destination of the choice of the complainant and many other offers were given by the OPs to the complainant which are mentioned in the Para no.3 of the complaint. On the allurement of the OPs, the complainant made a payment of Rs.55,000/- on 05.01.2020. Thereafter, lockdown was imposed in the country and when the unlock started, the complainant approached the OP No.1 in November, 2020 through e-mail to avail the gift voucher given by the OP No.1 but he was surprised, when he was told to deposit Rs.3,500/- as utility fee to avail the benefit of the gift voucher. The complainant contacted the customer care of OP No.1 and the executive of the OP no.1 simply denied and told that the abovesaid amount of Rs.3,500/- has to be paid otherwise the complainant cannot avail the benefit of the said voucher. Thereafter, the complainant has tried to use another additional voucher of stay of 4 days 3 nights and approached OP No.2 for the redemption of the voucher and on the instructions given by the OP No.2, the complainant sent the original voucher alongwith a demand draft of Rs.499/-. As per the said voucher, the complainant gave the destination of Dalhousie and the journey date was given 16.01.2021. The complainant received email on 08.01.2021 from OP No.2 in which it was informed to him that due to unavailability in hotels, bookings are not available and he was requested to give altered dates. The complainant  reverted to the said email and gave alter dated of 22.01.2021 instead of 16.01.2021, Thereafter, the complainant received another email from OP No.2 in which they requested the complainant for change of hotel as the hotel earlier provided by them was not available on the given dates. He gave his consent for change of hotel. The complainant was waiting for the confirmation voucher, which was to be provided by the OP No.2 for journey at Dalhousie for 22.01.2021 to 24.01.2021. However, it was shocking for him that instead of the receiving of the confirmation voucher, he received email from OP No.2 on 19.01.2021 wherein they informed that booking is not confirmed and for further issue, the complainant was told to contact OP No.1. The complainant contacted the OP No.1 through a telephonic call, whatsapp, emails but no information has been received from OP No.1 till date. Apart from the above issues, the OP no.1 has to provide flight ticket of Rs.10000/-to him and when the complainant approached the OP no.1 to avail the above said flight tickets, the OP No.1 is making lame excuses on one pretext to other. Due to the acts and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss; Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 through registered posts on 23.11.2021 which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs No.1 & 2; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.1 & 2, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 12.01.2022.

3.             The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, considered the written arguments filed by the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             Evidently, the OP no.1 after obtaining a sum of Rs.55,000/- from the complainant granted the membership no.TBCD3C20745 to him. As per Annexure C-5(colly), various benefits were offered, the details whereof are mentioned in the said Annexure as well as in Para no.3 of the complaint. The case of the complaint is that he was denied the stay facilities as promised by the OP No.1 at the time of providing the membership to him. The ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that OP No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.3,500/-, contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, when the complainant approached it for availing the benefits promised by gift certificate(Annexure C-2). It is contended that the OP No.1 failed to provide the accommodation on 16.01.2021 and on alternative date w.e.f. 22.01.2021 to 24.01.2021 at Dulhousie. It is further contended that a sum of Rs.499/- on the asking of OP No.1 was paid to OP No.2 vide DD No.000254 dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure C-7) but the OP No.2 after having e-mail conversation with the complainant between 08.01.2021 to 18.01.2021, ultimately, declined its services vide e-mail dated 19.01.2021 stating that there were some issues between OP No.1 & OP No.2. In this regard, our attention was drawn towards email (Annexure C-3(colly)). Concluding the arguments, the ld. counsel contended that the Ops had been deficient while rendering services to the complainant and thus, the complainant is entitled to the refund of sum of Rs.55,000/- alongwith interest and compensation etc.

6.             There is no rebuttal of the contentions and assertions of the complainant as the OPs No.1 & 2 have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent from the proceedings of the present complaint despite service of notice to them and accordingly were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs No.1 & 2 despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9.

8.                In view of the fact that the OPs No.1 & 2 neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs No.1 & 2 had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OPs No.1 & 2 are liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions :-

1. The OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint  till its realization.
2. The OP No.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.499/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
3. The OP No.1 and Op No.2 are directed to make a total payment of Rs.7000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment, out of which the payment of Rs.5000/- shall be made by OP No.1 and  balance payment of Rs.2000/- shall be made by OP No.2.
4. The OP No.1 shall bear the expenses as incurred by the complainant on account of litigation charges which are assessed as Rs.5,500/-.           

10.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs  No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 25.05.2022

 

                Dr.Sushma Garg                            Satpal

                  Member                                   President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                           Satpal

                                         President