Order-14.
Date-02/06/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that he purchased one Country Vacations International Club Membership on 29-12-2013 and became “high priority” – “high pricing” member under one ‘RED’ category being Country Club Membership No.CVKKICLUB30LR165972. The complainant paid Rs.3.01 lakh to the OP vide electronic bank transfer and the complainant also states that the said agreement with the OP is in force for 30 years which includes vacation with Resort Condominiums International (RCI) Properties. The complainant was directed to purchase the said agreement as the OP has tie up with RCI Properties. The complainant was attracted to purchase the said agreement as the OP has tie up with RCI Properties and the complainant as promised would be provided International Vacations over RCI Properties. The complainant has alleged that since after getting membership with the OP the complainant has never been satisfied with the service by the OP while availing vacations in terms of the contract. It is stated that as per the said agreement dated 29-12-2013 the complainant is eligible to get vacations with the RCI properties with other facilities and services and also one vacation in Bangkok as well as in Dubai, the OP for the same purpose shall be pleased to send one RCI Membership card and one DAE Membership Card to the complainant’s prescribed address to avail the vacations. It is alleged that OP has never sent RCI Membership card to the complainant at his address in spite of several requests and follow up. But OP has falsely stated that they have sent the said RCI Membership Card to the complainant. It is also alleged that the OP has made statement that complainant’s will not be able to enjoy an international holiday/vacation at Dubai as the complainants marital status is single(unmarried) but such version of the OP is not acceptable as nowhere in the contract it is written that unmarried person cannot avail vacations at Dubai. It is alleged that OP has deliberately delayed to provide RCI Membership Card to the complainant. OP suddenly during November, 2015 has disclosed that they have broken the tie up collaboration with the RCI and as such, unable to provide vacations with RCI. The complainant on such situation asked for refund of Rs.85,000/- out of Rs.3.01 Lakhs paid to the complainant at the time of the said agreement. The OP has agreed to refund Rs.85,000/- to the complainant on account of breaking of tie up with the RCI. The OP, thereafter, asked the complainant to go to its Topsia Office from Melbourne to Kolkata to receive Rs.85,000/- for certain formalities. The complainant asked the OP to transfer the said amount to his Bank account which is already provided to them but the OP rejected such requirement and became arrogant. The complainant has stated that he cannot travel overseas for collecting Rs.85,000/- as the travelling cost is much higher than Rs.85,000/-. It is also alleged that the complainant at the time of joining the OP was promised to provide with one complimentary SPA at the OP Resort but OP has only provided Ayurvedic SPA but failed to provide remaining two complimentary SPA. The complainant requested the OP several times but to no good. On 16-02-2016 the complainant booked a vacation at Bangkok at the OP’s affiliated property but the OP has charged Rs.1,000/- for utility fee instead of Rs.500/-. It is also alleged that OP has intentionally delayed in resolving their mis-conduct which results to lapse of complimentary vacations/holidays of 6 nights 7 days in Bangkok. The complainant has spent his vacation in another holiday/resort in Bangkok. It is stated that the complainant has paid AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) of Rs.65,000/- to the OP in terms of the agreement dated 25-12-2014, 28-12-2014, 24-12-2014 and 30-12-2014 vide E-mail to avail five complimentary holidays of 2 nights 3 days but the OP has provided one complimentary holiday out of 5. It is stated that the complainant previously also paid AMC amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the complainant intended to utilize another four year holiday for the year 2018-2021 in the year 2016 and onwards. But OP failed to activate the same till date to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that OP has not provided the service as promised in terms of “high priority “ – “high pricing” member of their organization. The complainant has alleged gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, this case.
OP has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the instant complaint petition is vindictive, motivated, harassive and mis-conceived one. This OP has denied the allegations that any holiday whatsoever was denied to him due to his marital status. It is also denied that the RCI Membership Card was not sent to him. It is stated that the OP had duly communicated to the complainant that the said card was duly despatched to the address of the complainant but as it is alleged by the complainant the same did not reach. It is stated that OP did not commit any breach of contract or deficiency in service. Moreover, OP as a gesture of goodwill has proposed to remit the amount of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant and to execute new agreement with the RCI Clause after re-vacating the previous service membership agreement but the complainant refused to either cancel and/or revoke his previous agreement or execute such new agreement. This OP has also denied that four agreements as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint were signed, consulted and executed by and between the complainant and the OP. It is stated that complainant has duly availed services of the OP for a period of 24 nights and 28 days in 2016 committees. It is also stated that OP did not agree to the complainant proposal to utilize four years holiday which would accrue between the parties for the years 2018 to 2022. The OP states that there is no illegality or deficiency in service on the part of the OP in disallowing the complainant in utilizing future accrual holidays in 2016, i.e. even before such holiday period had actually accrued. This OP also states that OP resolving right to discontinue its ties with RCI. It is also stated that complainant did not give his consent in electronically executing only agreement or electronic bank transfer. This OP has denied deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of Country Vacations International Holiday Card Membership Purchase Agreement dated 19-12-2013, Xerox copies of E-mails on different dates between the parties and other documents on record.
It appears that complainant purchased holidays and other facilities on 29-12-2013 from the OP on payment of Rs.3.01 lakhs. The OP was in obligation to provide holidays with Resort Condominium International properties as they have claimed as having tie up with RCI. It also appears that the OP has failed to send RCI Membership Card and DAE Membership Card to the complainant’s address in spite of several emails. We also find that the complainant requested the OP to make a booking in Shenzen China through RCI vide e-mail dated 16-08-2014 but OP had not delivered the complainant that RCI Card and OP told the complainant that OP cannot provide holidays without RCI card whereas the OP was not sending the RCI Card. The OP, however, has claimed that they had sent RCI and DAE card through courier/post but OP has failed to file such documents, when the OP was asked to file the same at the time of cross-examination through questionnaires (question No.6 of questionnaires, filed by the complainant). So, we find that the OP has harassed the complainant for more than one year to send RCI Card. The complainant lastly as we find reminded the OP to send the RCI card vide e-mail dated 17-04-2015 when the OP stated that they have broken tie with RCI and therefore, they cannot provide holidays. We also find that the OP has failed to provide any document/evidence that OP has broken tie up with RCI in the year 2015. We find that the agreement dated 29-12-2013 is in force for 30 years which includes vacation with RCI properties. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant was excited to purchase the said agreement as OP claimed tie up with RCI and the complainant will be provided international vacations over RCI properties. But we find that the suddenly during November, 2015 the OP has disclosed that they have broken the tie up/collaboration with RCI and for the same, they are unable to provide vacations with RCI. We think that the OP has practiced unfair trade in this regard by promising that they have tie-up with RCI and the complainant will be provided International Vacations over RCI properties but actually it was not so. So, it appears that OP has deliberately did not send RCI card to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant could not enjoy holidays vacations which was the main attraction for purchase the vacation agreement with the OP, we think that this is also a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We also find that ultimately after waiting for 14 months, the OP has agreed to pay compensation of Rs.85,000/- for not providing RCI facilities vide e-mail dated 27-04-2015. The complainant has asked to transfer the same to his ICICI Bank account vide e-mail dated 29-04-2015 but OP asked the complainant to go Kolkata from Australia to collect Rs.85,000/- vide e-mail dated 26-08-2015 after four months. It is also ridiculous that the complainant has to travel to India, Topsia Branch to get Rs.85,000/- by spending lakhs of rupees. Moreover, we find that the OP has accepted payment for AMC of Rs.65,000/- vide NEFT and OP has acknowledged and promised to provide this services categorically stated in e-mail dated 29-12-2014. We think that when OP can accept electric transfer from the complainant for payment of AMC it is also accepted that the OP can refund the same over his bank account as provided to them. We also find that OP did not refund Rs.85,000/- to the complainant till the date the instant case is filed. We also find that on 16-02-2014 the complainant booked a vacation at Bangkok at the OP’s affiliated property and OP also charged Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.500/-. The OP could not offer any reason of charging double utility fee as alleged by the OP. We think that the OP is deficient while providing service to the complainant as High pricing and High priority Member. We find that OP gave exaggerated imagine of National and International holidays, vacations with OP’s properties and/or with RCI properties but in reality OP never provided such services to the complainant. We think that OP is deficient in rendering services to the complainant in terms of high priority – high pricing member of its organization.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.20,000/-.
OP is directed to refund Rs.85,000/- along with interest at the rate of9 percent p.a. from 29-12-2013 till compliance within one month from the date of this order.
OP is further directed to refund Rs.2,000/- for charging double utility fee to the complainant within the said date.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- – 50 percent of which to be paid to the complainant and 50 percent to be paid to this Forum for indulging in unfair trade practice.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act.
