Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/274/2018

Ajay Singh Praveen - Complainant(s)

Versus

World Travel Arc - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	274 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	14.05.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	08.03.2019

 

 

 

 

1]  Ajay Singh Praveen s/o Satish Kumar Praveen, R/o H.No.197-GF, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh (UT)

 

2]  Shikha Ahuja w/o Dr.Ajay Singh Praveen, R/o H.No.197GF, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh (UT)

 

             ……..Complainants

Versus

 

1]  World Travel Arc, through its authorised signatory, Working from Conference Hall, Hotel James, Block No.10, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Vineet Manchanda, Director, World Travel Arc, Registered Office: SCF 45, 2^nd Floor, Phase-9, Mohali.

 

3]  Dinesh Kumar, Unit Manager, World Travel Arc. Office: Conference Hall, James Hotel Block No.10, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.  

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh.Ashish K. Gupta, Adv. for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainants in brief is that they visited the Opposite Parties on being called and were apprised about the various holiday packages. It is averred that the complainants selected a package and the OPs promised them to provide holiday experience for 10 years, which included domestic as well as international hotels, each year consisting of 7 nights and the cost negotiated was Rs.1,60,000/-.  It is also averred that the complainants told the Opposite Parties that they intend to visit Dubai in Nov., 2017 and thus want to avail international package on which the Opposite Parties also promised an enrolment gift of fully paid holiday for a couple in Goa for 3 nights (Ann.C-1).  The payment of Rs.95,000/- has been made to the Opposite Parties through credit card on 2.6.2017 and 5.6.2017 respectively.  Thereafter, the complainants availed the holiday package facility by booking 2 room nights in Coorg, Karnataka on 1.7.2017 and thereafter 2 room nights in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand on 8.7.2017.

 

         It is alleged that the complainants visited the Opposite Parties for making balance payment and to make room booking room for Dubai, which they denied.  It is stated that the Opposite Parties denied to provide any enrolment benefit as promised at the time of contract and stated that the amount so paid by them is adjusted to a 5 years package vide which facility of domestic hotels can be availed whereas the complainant had opted for 10 years package which includes international and domestic hotels.  It is also stated that due to said deficient act of Opposite Parties, the complainant send email dated 10.9.2017 to the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the agreement, thereby claiming refund of balance amount after deducting their expenses for 4 nights availed by them, which they denied.  It is submitted that the consent for the said contract was taken by making false promises and the OPs themselves have failed to fulfill promises made at the time of commencement of the contract. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and stated that the complainants initially opted for a plan for 10 years and with this plan, the complainants told a gift of fully paid holiday in Goa for 3 nights for a couple, on making full payment of the plan i.e. Rs.1,60,000/-.  However, the complainants themselves changed mind and changed the plan to that of ‘Gold Club’ amounting to Rs.95,000/- which includes 7 nights for one room (two adults and two kids upto 12 years) for 3 Star to 4 Star Category Hotels) per annum for 5 years and apart from this Annual Service Charges Rs.3000/- per annum.  Thereafter, all the necessary changes were made in the presence of the complainants on the applications which has already been placed on record by the complainants themselves as   Ann.C-1, duly signed.  It is submitted that since the complainants have not opted for 10 years plan nor made payment thereof of Rs.1,60,00/-, so they are not entitled for enrollment gift nor there is any policy of upgradation of the package to claim enrolment offer.  It is denied that it was ever mutually decided that the complainants would pay Rs.65,000/-, alleged balance amount for 10 years plan, after availing the domestic hotel stay, as there is no such policy for the same. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

3]       The complainants have also filed replication thereby reiterating the assertion as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by Opposite Parties.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainants in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is an admitted case of the complainants that they became member of the OPs Company to avail holiday packages and paid an amount of Rs.95,000/-. It is undisputed that the complainants availed holiday package facility of Opposite Parties by booking 2 room nights in Coorg, Karnataka on 1.7.2017 and thereafter 2 room nights in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand on 8.7.2017 upto their entire satisfaction.

 

7]       The grouse of the complainants is that Opposite Parties despite assurance refused to upgrade their plan on receipt of further amount during the package period nor provided enrollment gift and also changed/adjusted the 10 years plan to 5 years plan at their own. 

 

8]       The application form (Ann.C-1) placed on record by the complainants themselves shows that they have opted for Gold Category of 5 years plan and made payment of Rs.95,000/-. The complainants have not agitated the alleged changes about the years of plan while and before availing the domestic holiday package facility. In the absence of any documentary proof, the plea of the complainants about enrollment benefit and assurance of upgradation of their package after availing domestic holiday package facility, alleged to have been provided by the OPs, cannot be considered and believed. Hence, no deficiency in service is attributable towards the Opposite Parties.

 

10]      Keeping in view the above fact & circumstances of the case, the present compliant being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.        

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

8^th March, 2019                      

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER