- Nanda Dulal Sinha,
Mitali Sinha,
10, Galiff Street, Flat-40,
Kolkata-30, P.S. Shyampukur. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The Country Vacations
(A Division of Country Club India Ltd.),
86B/2, 4th Floor, Gajraj Chambers,
Topsia Road, P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-46. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 16 Dated 26-05-2014
The case of the complainant in short is that an agreement was executed on 26.12.10 between o.p. and the complainants for the member of o.ps. (membership no.CVA 119 # 0061). The total membership charge was Rs.1 lakh, out of which an amount of Rs.54,000/- was paid by the complainants in total. Out of Rs.54,000/-, Rs.20,000/- was paid by credit card and o.p. assured that Rs.34,000/- will carry 0% interest for 24 installments through SBI credit card. But complainants did not avail of the 0% interest and they had to pay Rs.40,150.95. The balance amount i.e. Rs.(1,00,000 – 54,000) = Rs.46,000/- was not paid by complainants. Complainants were provided a gift voucher for Bangkok and they have to pay there the meal charges separately. O.p. did not give them the membership card which they ought to have sent within 10 days from the date of membership i.e. 26.12.10. So the complainant filed the case with prayer for refund of membership charge of Rs.54,000/-, interest to SBI, refund of meal charges along compensation and cost.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that Bangkok vacation does not come under the purview of agreement dt.26.12.10 executed between complainants and o.p. The said vacation was provided to the complainant through a voucher upon certain consideration. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for o.p. argued that complainants did not opted for any services available under agreement dt.26.12.10. So question of deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practices does not arise. Therefore, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainants entered into an agreement on 26.12.10 with o.p. for availing of services from them. It is also admitted fact that in terms of the said agreement complainants had to pay Rs.1 lakh to o.p. Complainants paid Rs.54,000/- only towards membership. Complainants did not pay the balance amount as they are not provided the services by o.p. which were promised by o.p. As per agreement complainant did not avail of any services from o.p. But it is fact that o.p. had promised to allot them membership card within 10 days from the date of membership i.e. 26.12.10. But o.p. had failed to provide them the membership card though they have allotted the membership number. So the act of o.p. is clearly a deficiency in service. Therefore the complaint petition is allowed in part.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest against the o.p. in part. O.p. is directed to refund Rs.54,000/- (Rupees fifty four thousand) only to the complainants and is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
