Punjab

StateCommission

A/371/2017

Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Kumar Taneja - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Sharma

01 Nov 2017

ORDER

.         2^Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.371 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.05.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   01.11.2017

 

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer having its branch office at Alpha One Mall, GT Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                    Appellant/opposite party

Versus

Vijay Kumar Taneja, s/o Sh. Jodha Ram, R/o VPO Mehta Chowk, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar.

                                                                 Respondent/complainant

First Appeal against order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,   Amritsar.

Quorum:-

          Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

         Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member 

Present:-

          For the appellant                   :         Sh.Pardeep Sharma, Advocate

          For the respondent      :         Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate

           

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL MEMBER

ORDER

                    The appellant/opposite party (hereinreferred to as OP) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.218 of 2016 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Amritsar (herein referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and Ops were directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- and further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment suffered by the complainant and cost of litigation Rs.5000/-. Further directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of the District Forum.

2.                Complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that opposite party advertised and allotted a vacation plan vide membership No.CCD 161V1OLB22747. The complainant was approached by executive of the OP and they gave a proposal for membership of many clubs all over India and abroad and many other facilities. The complainant believing their words booked vacation plan which was for thirty years period on payment of Rs.1.5 lacs including complementary holiday for Bangkok for six nights and seven days and Dubai two nights and three days and subsequently, made the payment of Rs.1.5 lacs to OP on 06.09.2015. The OP issued letter of vacation membership for ten years instead of thirty years and the free/complementary holiday tour of Bangkok and Dubai was not given. The complainant was shocked to receive the said membership letter from the OP which was contrary to the proposal made to him and approached the OP, but the OP refused to entertain the complaint on flimsy grounds that they have changed the plan now they can’t offer him the thirty years vocation plan as promised nor the tour of Bangkok and Dubai as earlier offered. The said act of the OP in not providing the offered vacation plan is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practicing and mal-practices. The complaint was filed against the OP before the District Forum seeking following reliefs against the OP:-

1. The OP be directed to issue the correct vacation plan for thirty years and issue the vacation of the for Bangkok for six nights and seven days and Dubai two nights and three days or in the alternative refund Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @15% p.a. thereon from date of payment till realization.

2. The OP party be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lac to the complainant.

3. The OP be directed to pay the adequate cost of the present litigation.

3.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the complainant to file the complaint. In para wise reply, it was submitted that the complainant opted for 10 years (and not 30 years) vacation at membership fee of Rs.1.5 lacs which include holiday for Bangkok for six nights seven days and for Dubai two nights and three days. Copy of “Only Vacations Agreement (No Club/Fitness) signed by the complainant shows the period of membership as 10 years. Copy of welcome letter addressed to the complainant also shows the period of membership as 10 years. It is pertinent to mention here that document submitted by the complainant with his complaint showing membership for 30 years is not addressed to the complainant and has never been issued by the opposite party. This document is an old document when this membership used to be issued by the opposite party for 30 years at a membership fee of Rs.1,50,000/-. However, in the year 2016, the membership is now being issued for 10 years and not for 30 years. The membership of the complainant is made vide agreement dated 22.03.2016, as such, it was for 10 years and not 30 years. It was submitted that without admitting any fault, as a goodwill gesture, opposite party is even ready to issue vacation plan for 30 years and issue the additional vacation for Bangkok for six nights and seven days and Dubai two nights and three days “room only” as per booking procedure of the company. However, opposite party is not liable to pay any amount on account of compensation and litigation expenses.

4.                Before the District Forum the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.

5.             In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-2, copy of facility schedule Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.  In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Bharat Reddy, Legal Officer as Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

6.      After going through the allegations in the complaint, written versions filed by OP, evidence and documents brought on record, the complaint filed by the complainant was accepted as referred above.

7.      Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party has filed the present appeal.

8.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

9.      It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/OP that the complainant is relying upon a document showing membership plan for 30 years is not addressed to him and never issued by the OP. Vacation agreement  (No club/fitness) signed by the complainant clearly shows the period of membership as 10 years. In spite of this as a goodwill gesture, OP even ready to issue vacation plan for 30 years and issue the additional vacation for Bangkok for six nights and seven days and Dubai two nights and three days. Counsel for the complainant argued that brochure showing all India price list 2015 Ex.R-4 shows that membership of vocations (No club) blue season as
Rs.1.5 lacs for 30 years six nights seven days. The brochure was given by the executive of the OP. In spite of this the OP issued a welcome letter Ex.R-3 and subsequently a vacation agreement (No club/fitness) Ex.R-2 for 10 years instead of 30 years as committed in the brochure. The OP is now offering the plan for 30 years instead of 10 years has lost our faith being an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practicing/mal-practices. He further requested to  refund the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs deposited with the OP along with compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses as per orders of the learned District Forum. During the arguments, counsel for the appellant in view of the Ex. R-4 admitted deficiency in service on the part of OP wherein it is clearly mentioned 30 years plan for Rs.1,50,000/-.

10.               We are of the opinion that Ex.R-4 which is printed Brochure of the OP depicting all plans with rates, clearly depict vacations (No Club) Blue season plan for 30 years 6N&7D for 150K whereas 10 years 6N & 7D for 100k. It is misleading to say that it was not signed by OP and not addressed to the complainant. Also the offer of Op after lodging of complaint with the District Forum confirms deficiency in service/malpractices of Op.

11.               Sequel to the above, we do not any merit in the appeal. The District Forum has rightly ordered to refund the total fee amount along with compensation for harassment and litigation cost.

12.          In view of the above the appeal is dismissed and order of the District Forum is upheld.    

13.              The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.  

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the Court cases.

15.              Copy of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. 

 

                                                                     (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                   Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

                                                                  

November 01, 2017                               (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

PK/-                                                                     Member