ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for deficiency in service in not providing the assured services even though received Rs.1,51,250/- towards the membership fee and for refund of the same along with interest at 24 % per annum and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, hardship and humiliation and further Rs.20,000/- as cost of the litigation and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that;  the representatives of OP called complainant over phone intimating that he has won a prize and requested him to come and collect the gift, accordingly complainant visited the office of OP at Shivajinagar on 03.05.2019. OP representatives insisted the complainant to purchase membership of OP and also explained regarding the fee and the services available. They also informed that if he becomes member of OP, he will be provided six nights, seven days, stay per year for a period of 30 years and would get life time country club membership and also insisted him to become member on that day itself. He paid Rs.1,51,250/- through his credit card to become the member. He was asked to sign the sale agreement. Whereas, in the agreement they offers made by the representatives of OP was not at all mentioned.  He collected the gift given by the OP. 

3.     The complainant planned to go for a trip and to avail the benefits offered by the OP.  When he contacted OP for a trip to Singapore for 3 nights and four days and to provide free facility for a foreign trip, OP started to give evasive reply and failed to provide the said facility. Even after repeated request also to make arrangement for a trip to Singapore, OP did not oblige. However it offered a complimentary holiday at Amrita Castle Hyderabad, and the complainant availed said complimentary holiday and the arrangements made and the service provided by OP was poor. A lousy room without ventilation and an hygienic room was provided. Hence he decided to withdraw from the membership, and made a request to the customer care on 14.11.2019 through email intimating his willingness to cancel the membership he also lodged a complaint with police on 27.11.2019. OP has cheated him with false assurance. He had to issue a legal notice on 06.12.2021 demanding OP to refund the amount along with interest which was not replied nor complied with the demands. Whereas, during December 2021, OPs promised to resolve the dispute. Hence the complaint.

4.     Earlier OP 1 was made as a party and he appeared and filed the version upon the service of notice.  Afterwards by making an impleading application, OP-2 was also made as a party.  In the version filed by OP-1 it is contended that the complainant entered into “Millionaire Club classic package” on 08.06.2019 and executed the agreement on the said day for a consideration of Rs.1,51,250/-. The annexure has been enclosed discloses the membership package detail. A proposal was given for different package for a period of 30 years membership where the holidays are different.

5.     The complainant opted for a vacation plan under category of “Blue Season”, studio type under which as per clause 1 and 2 of the agreement, complainant is entitle a stay for a period of 2 nights and 3 days each every year at OP’s properties within India for a period of 5 years i.e. up to 2024.  The same is valid for life time and is renewable subject to the payment of the AMC charges as per clause 11 of the agreement.  The amount paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.1,51,250/- was towards one time non-refundable membership fee with 10 days of the cool of period. As per clause 11 there shall require to pay annual maintenance charges from the date of agreement on yearly basis for an amount of Rs.9,999/-. After deduction of the said amount the remaining amount would be refunded to the member within 120 working days from the date of invoking the cool of period.  After expiry of the said date no refund is possible under any circumstance.

6.     As per clause 11 of the agreement complainant is required to pay annual maintenance charges of Rs.9,999/- per year excluding the taxes irrespective of the usage of the membership and clause 20 of the agreement, holiday booking to be done online through the country club mobile application. 

7.     As per clause 27 second party can be denied using members vacation, if there is any outstanding due payable from the first party.  It has mentioned the various provisions of clause 39, 43, 44 , 49, 51.

8.     It is further contended that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission as, this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to file the complaint. As per clause 51 of the agreement, the commission and courts at Hyderabad alone has territorial jurisdiction and all the other courts in the country have been ousted from jurisdiction.   There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint under Section 2(11) of CP act. The averments made in the complaint are not supported with documentary evidence. 

9.     It has denied that the complainant was pressurized to get the membership on that day itself.  Complainant has given consent through a welcome call done by the OP and OPs have verified the personal details of the complainant, payment mode, membership scheme, informed the online user name and password and requested the complainant to download the mobile app.  Further complainant has received a credit Rs.50/- in his AMC account. All these have been recorded and CD would be furnished at the time of evidence.

10.   It is further contended that after the execution of the agreement, complainant is eligible for 2 nights 3 days trip for two adults and two kids under 12 years of age.  Under “Blue Season Category” amount of Rs.1,51,250/- paid by the complainant is one time non-refundable vacation charges and complainant was entitle to cool of period and if not satisfied entitle to receive the said amount less Rs.3,800/- and the refund would be paid within 120 days thereafter. 

11.   Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the membership agreement, is not entitle for international holidays whereas he is entitle for domestic holidays which is clearly mentioned in the agreement. Hence the allegation that he has not been provided with the services of tour to Singapore is false incorrect and complainant is not eligible for the said tour.  Complainant has used the holiday membership and is not entitle for the refund of the amount as he has utilized the services of the membership and is also not entitle for compensation claimed.  They have provided the services as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. There is no evidence placed by the complainant for the poor service.  The complainant has not paid the annual maintenance cost.  However they have provided the holiday benefits to the complainant as a goodwill gesture.  Hence seeking cancellation of the membership and refund of the amount is not proper and maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

12.   In order to prove the case, complainant has filed the affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

13.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2 :    IN THE NEGATIVE

                                        For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

14.   On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by both the parties, it becomes clear that, the complainant became the member of OP’s country club hospitality and holidays and the country vacations international holiday club by paying the membership fee of Rs.1,51,250/-. It is also admitted by the OP that it has received the said amount of Rs.1,51,250/- and they have entered into millionaire classic package sale agreement.  Since the complainant has agreed that they have entered into an agreement, he is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement.

15.   It is the specific case of the complainant that he requested OPs to provide a tour to Singapore which was denied by OPs.  Hence he do not want to continue the membership.  On the other hand, it is the specific stand of the OP that as per the said “millionaire club classic package” sale agreement the member is only entitle for two nights and three days stay for each year at CC HHL’s Own managed properties within India for an additional 4 years, totally 5 years, valid during the weekdays only. When this is taken into consideration, the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency in service in not providing a trip to Singapore cannot be accepted as it is not included in the terms and conditions of the agreement and OP has not at all agreed to provide such a service and the demand of the complainant for a non-agreed service amounts to claim which he has no right to claim and not entitle for the same.

16.   Further complainant has stated that, he was provided with a trip to Hyderabad to “Amrutha Castle” and their stay in the hotel was not confortable and the said hotel was very lousy unventilated and unhygienic.  No proper evidence is produced to that effect, to hold that the said services was of poor quality. 

17.   When the complainant has utilized the services offered by OPs and as there is no evidence adduced to show that the said service is of poor quality, this commission cannot accept the say of the complainant that the OP has provided poor service and deficiency in service.  Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE and in the result complainant is not entitle for any of the relief claimed in the complaint and answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE. In case complainant wants to continue the membership he has to pay the annual maintenance charges as agreed to the OP and utilize the benefits offered under the agreement. Hence we pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 13^th  day of OCTOBER 2022)

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Purchase agreement dated 03.05.2019.

Ex P2: Copy of the receipt for issued by  OP.

Ex. P3: Copy of the email dt:07.07.2019

Ex P4: Copy of the police complaint dt:27.11.2019.

Ex P5: Copy of the legal notice dated 06.12.2021.

Ex P6: Postal track record dt:09.12.2021.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: - Nil -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

- Nil -

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

RAK*