The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act” ) is at the behest of the complainant  to impeach the final order being order no. 14 dated 02.06.2017 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - II ( in short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No. 565/2016.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the appellant under Section 12 of the Act with cost of Rs.20,000/- with the direction upon the  respondent to refund Rs. 85,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from  29.12.2013 till compliance, to refund Rs. 2,000/- for  charging double utility fee and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-  for unfair trade practice.

       The Appellant  herein being  complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting  that he has purchased one ‘Country Vacations International Holiday Club Membership’ on  29.12.2013 and became ‘High Priority – High Pricing’ Member under one ’RED’ category being paid Rs.3.01 lakh to the respondent by way of electronic bank transfer. The complainant was attracted to purchase the said agreement as the respondent has tie up with Resort Condominiums International (RCI) Properties. The appellant has stated that by virtue of the agreement dated 29.12.2013 he was also eligible to get vacations with the RCI properties with other facilities and services and also one vacation in Bangkok as well as in Dubai. Accordingly, the respondent was supposed to send one RCI Membership Card and one DAE Membership Card to the appellants prescribed address to avail  the vacation. Unfortunately, when the appellant insisted for RCI Membership Card constantly, in the month of November, 2015 the respondent has disclosed that they have broken the tie – up with the RCI and for same they are unable to provide vacations with RCI. The appellant, then claimed  refund of Rs. 85,000/- only out of Rs. 3.1 lakh and the respondent has agreed to return the same but asked  the appellant  to come to its Topsia Office from Melbourne only to collect Rs.85,000/- with certain formalities. The appellant has also stated that on 16.02.2016 he booked a vacation at Bangkok at the  respondent’s affiliated property but  the respondent has charged Rs.1,000/- for  ‘utility fee’ instead of Rs. 500/- as per agreement. On the allegation of the same and several other deficiencies, the appellant lodged the complaint with prayer for several reliefs, viz-(a) to direct  the OP to refund Rs.85,000/- with  15% interest thereon from 29.12.2013 till realisation;(b) a direction upon the OP to refund Rs. 2,000/- for  illegally charged double utility fee of Rs. 1,000/- per day instead of Rs.500/- with  15% per annum;(c) compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony;(d) litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- etc.

       The respondent being OP by filing a written version has stated that they had proposed to remit an amount of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant, to execute a new agreement without the RCI Clause mentioned therein. The OP has also stated that  the complainant had availed the services of them strictly as per the terms and conditions and as such there was no deficiency on the part of them.

       After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with  certain directions, as indicated above. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

       Mr. Amarnath Sanyal, Ld . Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum should have awarded interest  on refund of Rs. 2,000/- for charging double utility fee to the appellant. He has also submitted that the Ld. District Forum has not awarded any amount as compensation and as such   the impugned order should be set aside.

       Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate for the respondent  has contended that  the appellant is a  resident of Melbourne and at the time of filing complaint, particularly at the time of getting the affidavit notarised, the appellant was not present and as such  the Ld. District Forum should have  rejected the complaint. He has further contended that as per  reply given by the complainant against the questionnaire set forth by the OP, complainant/appellant should have affirmed an affidavit in order to substantiate that the signatures appears in the petition of complaint are his genuine signatures.

       I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.

       Undisputedly, the appellant used to  reside at Melbourne (Australia). On   29.12.2013, the appellant has purchased    one ‘Country Vacations International Holiday Club Membership’ on  29.12.2013 and became ‘High Priority – High Pricing’ Member under one ’RED’ category being and paid Rs.3.01 lakh to the respondent by way of electronic bank transfer. The said Membership agreement is the subject matter of the instant dispute. According to the said agreement, the  respondent was under obligation to provide Holidays with RCI Properties as they have claimed as having tie – up with the RCI. The fact remains that in the month of November,2015 the respondent has disclosed that they had broken the tie-up with RCI and for that reason they are unable to provide vacations with RCI.

       In  their written version, the  respondent agreed to refund Rs. 85,000/- collected for RCI facilities but the same was required to be collected from the Office at Topsia, Kolkata.  When the respondent admitted their fault for not providing the RCI facilities, the respondent in all fairness could have refund the amount through electronic bank transfer , particularly when the respondent accepted the amount from  the appellant through electronic bank transfer. The claim of the respondent for personal appearance of the appellant clearly indicates that  the respondent company is in no mood to make payment of the said amount in easy method. This not only indicates deficiency in services on the part of respondent but also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of them. 

       The materials on record also indicate that on  16.02.2016 the appellant had booked a vacation at Bangkok at the respondents affiliated property but the respondent has charged Rs.1,000/- for  ‘ utility fee’ instead of Rs. 500/-  as per terms of the agreement.

       Considering the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum  has rightly directed to  refund  Rs.85,000/-  along with interest thereon @9% p.a. from 29.12.2013 till compliance. However,  the Ld. District Forum has not awarded any interest over the amount of Rs. 2,000/- for charging double utility fee. The L d.
District Forum should have imposed an interest @9% p.a. from  16.02.2016 when the excess amount of utility fee was collected. Otherwise, I do not find any substance in the appeal which requires enhancement of the amount of award. The amount of compensation in the form of interest has already been imposed by the Ld. District Forum and therefore, no separate order for compensation would be required.

       So far as submission of Ld. Advocate for the respondent, I feel  when no appeal has been preferred by the  respondent challenging the impugned order, if any observation is made  regarding the genuineness of signature of complainant /appellant it will be beyond the issue appears in ground of appeal. Moreover, the  respondent  /OP knowing fully well that  the appellant is a  resident of Melbourne had entered into  an agreement, now cannot take advantage of the same. Furthermore,  when the appellant by an e- mail has categorically stated that  there should not be any doubt or question as to his signature, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve the same.

       In view of the above,  the impugned order is modified only  to the extent that the appellant/complaint shall be entitled to an interest @Rs.9% p.a. over the amount of Rs.2,000/- charged as utility fee from 16.02.2016 till its realisation. The other part of the impugned order is maintained.

       With the above observations and direction, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

       The  Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit – II for information.