Orissa

Cuttak

CC/163/2023

Narendra Prasad Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,Royals Club International - Opp.Party(s)

S Swain & associates

19 Oct 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                             C.C.No.163/2023

Narendra Prasad Rath,

S/o: Digambar Rath,

CDA,Sector-7,Plot No.D/268,

Cuttack-753014.                                                         ... Complainant.

 

                           Vrs.

The Managing Director,

Royals Club International

(A unit of Royals Timeshare India Ltd.,),

Central Reservation Office,B-135,

2^nd Floor,Sector-2,Noida(U.P),

Pin-201301.                                                                          … Opp. Party.

 

 

   Present:   Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:      20.05.2023

Date of Order:    19.10.2023

 

 

For the complainant:          Mr. S.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                :          None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.   

          The case of the complainant in short is that he became a member of O.P’s Club under “Gold Advantage Card” vide Membership No.RTI/0020802 by applying to the O.P in the prescribed format in his name alongwith his family members and for the said purpose he paid Rs.55,000/- for five years commencing from April,2022 to April,2027.  The complainant as well as his wife had executed an agreement with the O.P. As per the said agreement, the O.P would provide hotel/resort accommodation of 35 days in 5 years to the complainant with his family members at tourist places all over India as well as abroad in vacation.  It is further case of the complainant that he had signed the agreement hurriedly without going through the agreement wherein as per the said agreement, he is required to pay annual Maintenance Charges in short “AMC” of Rs.9000/- + Tax every year.  It is stated by the complainant that reluctantly he took up the membership of the O.P.  The complainant while wanted to book a hotel/resort under the membership of O.P to Puri, he was compelled by the O.P to pay the AMC.  Hence, the complainant was compelled to pay such charges alongwith 10% GST of Rs.10,620/- and in total the O.P collected Rs.65,620/-.  It is further case of the complainant that the O.P accommodated the complainant in a hotel namely “Pride Ananya Resorts”.  The room provided by the O.P in the said hotel was not of studio type room and no other facilities like complimentary breakfast, spa etc were also not provided to him which was promised by the O.P to be given to the complainant and thereby the O.P has violated clause-3 of the agreement.  The complainant so also raised his displeasure over the different clauses of the agreement executed between them.  Being dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P, the complainant asked the O.Ps on 2^nd day of December,2022 for cancellation of his membership and refund of his fees.  But the O.P did not respond to such request of the complainant.  Thereafter in the month of April,2023, the O.P did not allow the complainant to book further trip to Puri showing non-availability of hotels.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a direction to the O.P to refund his money amounting to Rs.65,620/- as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith his litigation expenses.

The complainant has filed xerox copy of some documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P has been set exparte vide order dt.31.7.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Points No.i & ii.

Point no.i & ii are taken up together for the sake of convenience  here in this case.

On perusal of the complaint petition, written notes of submission as well as the documents filed by the complainant, it is noticed that the complainant has paid Rs.55,000/- to the O.P to be a member under “Gold Advantage Card” of O.P vide Membership No. RTI/0020802.  The complainant alongwith his wife applied to the O.P to be their member and executed an agreement with the O.P for availing accommodation in hotel/resort of 35 days in five years in different tourist places all over India and abroad.  The main allegation of the complainant is that the O.P is charging AMC.  It is also alleged by the complainant that he was not provided accommodation of studio type rooms, when he visited Puri by using O.P’s card.  The complainant has not filed any evidence/documents to the effect that he has paid Rs.55,000/- towards membership fee to the O.P as well as Rs.10,620/- towards the AMC.  On this ground alone, the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  The complainant had executed an agreement with the O.P, wherein the AMC charges has been clearly mentioned in the said agreement.  Hence, he cannot escape from the clause of the agreement by expressing his displeasure.  As regards to non-providing of studio type rooms to the complainant on his stay at Puri, the complainant is unable to adduce any evidence to that effect.  Hence, the allegation of the complainant cannot be believed.  The complainant mainly has challenged the clauses of the agreement which is not maintainable before this Commission.  The complainant has executed the agreement with the O.P and that agreement has been acted upon by both the parties.  Hence the question of misrepresentation and fraud by the O.P as well as plea of absence of free will of the complainant does not arise.  Such plea of the complainant is only after thought, which is neither believable nor sustainable in the eye of law.  The complainant has also not filed supporting documents to prove his case including the payment made to the O.P.   In view of the above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  Hence, question of deficiency of service on the part of O.P does not arise.

  Point No.iii.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                  ORDER

Case is dismissed exparte against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of October,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.      

                                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                  Member

 

                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                               President