BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st of August 2010
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.40/2010
(Admitted on 30.01.2010)
1) Mr.Philip DSouza,
So. Mr.Mark DSouza,
Aged about 52 years.
2) Mrs.Anitha D’Souza,
W/o.Mr.Philip D’Souza,
Aged about 44 years.
3) Miss. Melita B.D’Souza,
Aged about 16 years,
D/o. No.1 and 2 above.
4) Miss. Genesia D’Souza,
Aged about 13 years,
D/o. No.1 and 2 above.
No.3 and 4 are minor children of
No.1 and 2 above and are represented
by their natural guardian/next friend/
father No.1 above.
All are residing at Flat No.D4,
Veekay Park Apartments,
Post Ashoknagar, Kotekani Road,
Urwastores, Mangalore 575 006. …….. COMPLAINANTS
(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri.Tony Fernandez).
VERSUS
1) The Manager Customer Care Section,
Country Vacations,
A Division of CCI Ltd.,
D.No.15 6 302 12,
Goldfinch Complex,
Bunts Hostel Road,
Kodialbail, Mangalore.
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Smt.Aruna B.P.)
2) The Manager (Customer Care Section)
Country Vacations 3-6-12/13,
4th Floor Al Samad, Liberty X Road,
Himayat Nagar,
Hyderabad – 29.
3) The Manager (Customer Care Section Country
Club (India) Ltd.,
7-02B, 3rd Floor, Crystal Arc,
Balmatta Road,
Mangalore – 575 001. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.2 and 3: Exparte).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainants have been registered as members with Country Club (India) Limited as per the letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 14.11.2007. It is stated that, the Complainants, in the name of Complainant No.1 for the purpose of plot registration paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 on 22.03.2009. The Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in two installments of Rs.10,000/- as per receipt No.376 dated 28.12.2008 and for Rs.90,000/- as per receipt No.401 dated 31.12.2008 and further Rs.5,000/- each by way of 3 installments, in all Rs.15,000/- paid to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties in turn issued a receipt.
The Complainants in order to enjoy their family life decided to go to Delhi, staying in holiday resort of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainants asked the Opposite Party No.1 to book a resort at Delhi to stay during the period from 14.04.2009 to 17.04.2009. The booking of the said tour was done through customer care of the Opposite Party. At that time, the Complainants were told by one Mr.Prashanth on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 that there is no direct C.V. resorts at Delhi but he will arrange at Faridabad resort and asked to pay Rs.4,400/- D.D. for the Faridabad resort. The Complainant paid Rs.4,400/- through pay slip, after 5 days on 04.04.2009 Mr.Prashanth called and informed the Complainant No.1 to gave confirmation voucher and it was mentioned that they have booked one room in hotel Jyothi Deluxe at Carol Bagh, Delhi.
It is further stated that, the Complainants as scheduled traveled by air from Mangalore to Delhi via Mumbai and reached Delhi at 5.30 p.m. and the Complainants called Jyothi Deluxe Hotel from Delhi Airport to send the vehicle and the hotel people asked the Complainants to pay Rs.450/- towards taxi fare and service. Immediately the Complainants booked one pre-paid taxi and paid Rs.215/- to reach the hotel. For the said hotel/ accommodation, Rs.1,100/- per day was collected by the Opposite Party No.1 and having assured no extra payment regarding the same by Opposite Party No.1, surprisingly the said hotel charged and collected extra payment of Rs.300/- per day in all for 4 days Rs.1,200/-. The Complainants protested for the same and under oral protest paid Rs.1,200/- for the room. It is stated that, the Complainants informed that for Rs.1,000/- best hotel accommodation is available in Karol Bagh of Delhi and inspite of that the Complainants were made to suffer higher charges i.e., Rs.200/- extra. The Complainants put to all the inconvenience and hardship during the said tour.
The further allegations of the Complainants are that, the hotel accommodation booked through the Opposite Parties found to be a narrow building by the side of corner road, the room was quite dark without proper ventilation and the hotel room and the bath room was dirty and muddy water was coming through the water tap and the same has been complained to the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Parties did not send any reply. It is contended that the Complainants have lost confidence with regard to the various services and facilities which they are said to be provide, much contrary to the assurances, publicities made by them and thus they have decided for refund of the membership fee and all money which is paid by them to the Opposite Parties. It is further stated that, the Complainants have come across other persons grievances as well as various orders passed in favour of certain Complainants consumers and also adverse order passed against the Opposite Parties which are reported in daily Newspaper, they are constrained to file the above Complaint for seeking refund of the membership fee i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- paid to Opposite Party No.1, Rs.35,000/- paid to Opposite Party No.1 towards site registration initially informed to be at Bangalore and later on much to the surprise of the Complainants, the Opposite Parties informed that the site registration will be done to the name of the Complainants which is situated at Bangalore road of Andhra Pradesh and contended that it is a trick and stratagem employed by the Opposite Parties in cheating the Complainants. Hence the above Complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount of membership of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.35,000/- being the amount of site registration fee and Rs.15,000/- paid to Opposite Party No.3 and a sum of Rs.1,200/- collected extra by hotel Jyothi Deluxe arranged by Opposite Party No.1 and compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel filed version.
Opposite Party No.2 and 3 despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The postal acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 and 2.
Opposite Party No.1 denied the entire allegations and submitted that, the Complainant No.1 who was intended to go on a business trip in Karol Bagh area in New Delhi, requested the Opposite Party No.1 to arrange for an accommodation in the tie up property of Opposite Party No.1. Since no rooms were available between 14.04.2009 to 18.04.2009 in their tie-up property, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the same to the Complainant No.1 and 2. The Opposite Party No.1 even after giving a clear picture, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to make arrangements in any hotel in Karol bagh area itself. The Opposite Party No.1 agreed to find a hotel and forwarded CV member room reservation slip to the Complainants and the Complainants filled the said slip and requested to arrange the vehicle. The Opposite Party No.1 was able to get bookings at hotel Jyothi Deluxe situated in Karolbagh. It is stated that, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants that the star hotels are not available during the said dates and also stated that, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants to get more information regarding the said hotel from the internet.
The Opposite Party No.1 further states that, purchase agreements executed by the Complainants very clear that majority of the resorts offer pick-up drop and sight-seeing as per the applicable charges. The Opposite Party contended that there is no fault or deficiency on their part.
Opposite Party No.1 again states that, they had very clearly briefed the Complainants that a pot would be registered in the name of the Complainants at Vedic Spa situated in Hindupur State of Andhra Pradesh upon payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. The terms and conditions for allotment of complimentary plot given to the Complainants and they have ready and agreed and affixed their signature. And it is denied that nowhere in the terms and conditions for allotment of complimentary site would be registered at Bangalore by the side of the Bangalore road. And further it is stated that, there is no merit in the Complaint and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Philip D’Souza (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant produced 10 (ten) documents as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Imran Khan (RW1), Branch-in-charge of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Opposite Party No.1 produced 3 (three) documents as listed in the annexure. Both parties produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
From the outset of the records available on the file of this Forum, the facts which are not in dispute that, the Complainants are the members of the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 is the Head Office of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 is the sister concern of the Opposite Party No.1. It is also not in dispute that, the Complainants approached the Opposite Party No.1 in order to book an accommodation in New Delhi for their business trip along with family who are also the members of the Opposite Party No.1. It is also not in dispute that, the Complainant No.1 requested the Opposite Party No.1 to make arrangements for their stay at Karol Bagh area in New Delhi. It is further admitted by the parties before this Forum that, at that point of time the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainants that the Opposite Parties does not possess any property i.e., resort/hotel of its own in New Delhi and only club facility belonging to that of the Opposite Party No.2 is to be available in New Delhi. And also it is not disputed that, since the Complainant was going on a business trip along with his family in Karol Bagh area it would be inconvenience for him to commute from Faridabad to New Delhi and requested the Opposite Party No.1 to arrange for an accommodation in the tie up property of Opposite Party No.1. Since there was no room available between 14.04.2009 to 18.04.2009 in their tie up property in New Delhi more specifically in Karol Bagh area, the Complainant No.1 and 2 requested the Opposite Party No.1 to make arrangements in any hotel at Karol Bagh area itself.
From the above admitted facts, it is proved beyond doubt that, the Opposite Parties owned property at Faridabad i.e., away from New Delhi and no rooms were available between 14.04.2009 to 18.04.2009 in their tie up property. The same has been informed to the Complainant No.1 and 2, in turn the Complainants requested the Opposite Party No.1 to make arrangements in any hotel at Karol Bagh area, accordingly the Opposite Party No.1 arranged the hotel in Karol Bagh area i.e., Jyothi Deluxe situated in Karol Bagh Area. It is also not in dispute between the parties that, the hotel booked by the Complainants through Opposite Party No.1 is not a star hotel. If at all, the facility provided by the hotel is not upto the standard and suffers from deficiency, the Complainants cannot blame the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a Complaint under deficiency of service. It is the look after of the Complainants to check the accommodation before reserving/booking the reservation through Opposite Party No.1. In the instant case, the Complainants miserably failed to check the accommodation before reserving/booking. As we said, the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be blamed for the deficiency committed by the reserved hotel and one cannot expect star facility from the hotel where it is not booked under star facility.
The another allegation of the Complainants are that, a plot would be registered in the name of the Complainants at Vedic Spa situated in Hindupur of State of Andhra Pradesh upon payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Opposite Parties deliberately did not make it clear with regard to the situation of the proposed plot at Andhra Pradesh. They had only informed that site will be provided at Hindupur of Bangalore road. And further contended that, the terms and conditions for allotment of complimentary plot does not said that the proposed plot that would be registered is situated at Andhra Pradesh, it only stated to be located at Vedic Spa in Hindupur. The Complainants were under the impression that the said plot would be located within Bangalore and accordingly paid the amount stated in the Complaint.
The Opposite Parties on the other hand vehemently contended that, they had very clearly briefed the Complainants that a plot would be registered in the name of the Complainants at Vedic Spa situated in Hindupur of State of Andhra Pradesh upon payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and produced the terms and conditions for allotment of complimentary plot i.e., document No.1 produced by the Opposite Parties.
However, we have gone through the document No.1 i.e., original purchase agreement dated 27.12.2008 bearing contract No.DT 90/163 with work sheet, on careful scrutiny of the work sheet and the terms and conditions, wherein, both parties affixed their signature. Nowhere in the terms and conditions for allotment of complementary plot is as stated that site would be registered at Bangalore or by the side of Bangalore road. In the absence of the same, we are declined to consider that the Opposite Parties were assured the complementary site would be registered at Bangalore or by the side of Bangalore. The Complainants miserably failed to prove that, the Opposite Parties are not adhered to the various services and facilities which they are providing, much contrary to the assurances, publicities made by them. Just because the Complainants have come across other persons grievances as well as various orders passed in favour of certain Complainant consumers and also adverse order passed against the Opposite Parties which are reported in Daily Newspapers, the Complainants cannot file a Complaint under deficiency of service. Until and unless the deficiency of service is proved as against the Opposite Parties before this Forum the complaint filed by the Complainant cannot be entertained. In the instant case, the Complainant miserably failed to prove the deficiency of service as against the Opposite Parties.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the Complaint filed by the Complainants, hence deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 12 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of August 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Philip D’Souza – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Doc.No.1 – 28.12.2008: Receipt bearing No.376 for Rs.10,000/- issued by C.V. – Opposite Party No.1.
Doc. No.2 – 31.12.2008: Receipt bearing No.401 for Rs.90,000/- issued by C.V – Opposite Party No.1.
Doc. No.3 – 23.03.2009: Receipt bearing No.182 for Rs.35,000/- issued by C.V – Opposite Party No.1.
Doc. No.4 (a) 31.07.2007 - Receipt bearing No.55761 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Opposite Party No.3.
(b) 31.08.2007 - Receipt bearing No.56979 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Opposite Party No.3.
(c) 29.07.2007 - Receipt bearing No.58251 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Opposite Party No.3.
Doc. No.5 – 03.04.2009: Pay in slip issued by ICICI Bank for Rs.4,400/-.
Doc. No.6 – 18.04.2009: Receipt bearing No.806 issued by Hotel Jyothi Deluxe Carol Bagh New Delhi for Rs.1,200/-.
Doc. No.7 – 20.05.2009: Letter of grievances sent by the Complainant NO.1 to the Manager (Customer Care Section), C.V. Hyderabad.
Doc. No.8 – 17.09.2009: Letter sent for refund of Rs.1.00 lakh with interest by the Complainant No.1 to the Manager.
Doc. No.9 - : Terms and conditions for allotment of complementary plot.
Doc. No.10 – 27.12.2008: Purchase agreement contract No.DT90#163.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:
RW1 – Sri.Imran Khan, Branch-in-charge of the Opposite Party No.1
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:
Doc. No.1 – 27.12.2008: Original Purchase Agreement bearing contract No.DT90/163 with work sheet.
Doc. No.2 – 01.04.2009: Copy of CV holiday confirmation voucher.
Doc. No.3 - : Copy of CV Member room reservation request slip.
Dated:31.08.2010 PRESIDENT
