Per:- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT
The Complainants are the members of Royal Country Club India Pvt. Ltd. The Opposite Party No.1 is the Managing Director while the Opposite Party No.2 is the Chairman of the said Club (hereinafter referred to the Opposite Party – Club).
[2] The Complainants purchased Country Vacations from the Opposite Party – Club; for sum of Rs.1,66,100/-, vide an agreement dtd.11/11/2004. It is alleged by the Complainants that the Opposite Party – Club; is not able to provide holidays to the Complainants as per convenience and choice of the Complainants. According to the Complainants, they were informed that Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club (RCI) items are not listed in GAP Catalogue, but the Complainants, on becoming members, were informed that the Opposite Party’s resorts are under RCI and governed by their terms and availability. Thus, it is alleged by the Complainants that the Opposite Party – Club; has indulged into unfair trade practice, as contemplated under Section-2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and it is guilty of deficiency in service. [3] The Complainants have sought refund of sum of Rs.1,66,100/-, which was paid under the agreement and compensation in sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. [4] The Opposite Party – Club; contested the complaint by filing its written version and took stand that the resorts managed by the Club are affiliated to the Resorts Condominiums International (RCI), which is worlds largest computerized holiday exchange company. The Opposite Party –Club; admitted that the Complainants had entered into an agreement dttd.11/11/2004 with the Opposite Party – Club; under which the Complainants purchased 165 Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club Points. As per the agreement, the Complainants were entitled to request accommodation and the Opposite Party – Club; was to offer the holidays as per the availability of resorts. The Opposite Party – Club; then, referred to certain factual aspects, which led the Complainants to carry wrong impression that the Opposite Party – Club; was guilty of deficiency in service. According to the Opposite Party – Club; as per the terms of agreement, the Complainants are not entitled to refund of any amount. [5] The Complainants have filed their joint affidavit. They also produced copy of the agreement as well as copy of the notice served upon the Opposite Party – Club. As against this, the Opposite Party – Club; filed written notes of arguments and annexed to the same copy of the agreement as well as copies of e-mails sent to the Complainants. The Opposite Party – Club; also filed affidavit of its Branch Manager. [6] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits as well as documents and written submissions filed by the parties. [7] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1, | Whether the Complainants have proved that there is adoption of unfair trade practice and consequential deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Club? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainants are entitled to refund of amount? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [8] Copy of the purchase agreement has been produced on the record by both the parties. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties about the terms incorporated in the agreement. From the contents of the agreement, it is seen that the Complainants had purchased 165 new points as vacation ownership. Under clause No.(08) of the agreement, a member of the Club is entitled to request accommodation at any of the resorts in the Club. However, same clause makes it clear that the promoter reserves a right to vary the resorts included in the Club from time to time and the member shall abide by the reservation procedure as set out in the member’s guide. In the written submissions filed by the Opposite Party – Club; a contention is raised to the effect that the Complainants were not entitled to any particular resort for any particular period, but it was subject to availability of accommodation at a particular resort. [9] In the present case, as set out in the written version filed by the Opposite Party – Club; the Complainant No.1, vide an e-mail dtd.27/9/2005, requested the Customer Service Department of the Opposite Party – Club; for accommodation for 10 people at Sterling Lake View Resort, Kodaikanal; or Hill Country Resort during the period 10/10/2005 to 14/10/2005 viz. Dassera Vacation or during the period 31/10/2005 to 4/11/2005 viz. Divali Vacation. According to the Opposite Party – Club; these days were popular and at the respective resorts the dates, as desired by the Complainants, were not available. However, the Opposite Party – Club; offered the Complainants accommodation for 08 people at Sterling Lake View Resort during the period 17/10/2005 to 21/10/2005, which the Complainants refused to accept. The Opposite Party – Club; could not accede to the request made by the Complainants because those dates were heavily booked due to popularity of destination. [10] We have gone through the copy of the e-mail sent by the Opposite Party – Club; to the Complainants by which the Opposite Party – Club; had expressed its inability to accommodate the Complainants on above respective dates. The agreement between the parties does not also show that the Complainants, as of right, were entitled to particular days at a particular resort. Such request could be considered by the Opposite Party – Club; subject to availability of accommodation at a particular resort. This was explained to the Complainants through e-mails, which preceded filing of the present complaint. Thus, we find that in not accommodating the Complainants at a particular resort, the Opposite Party – Club; was not guilty of deficiency in service. [11] Apart from that as per Clause No.13 of the agreement, the agreement was legally binding, final and neither rescindable nor cancelable, and therefore, unless the agreement is rescinded or terminated there cannot be refund of agreement amount. There is no provision under the agreement, which enables either party to rescind or terminate the agreement unilaterally. Therefore, the agreement does not confer right to terminate the agreement while it is in force and seek refund of the amount. From this stand point also, we find that the Complainants are not entitled to refund of agreement amount. [12] We, therefore, find that the grievance expressed by the Complainants vis-à-vis deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party – Club; have not been substantiated and as such, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
