Present:-      Ms. Zainab Parveen Advocate for Complainant

The complainant originally filed the complaint without relevant documents. Then she filed an application on 05/01/2023, (after the matter was adjourned) seeking permission to file additional document and further on 07/02/2023 she filed another application seeking permission to file more additional documents i.e. Bank Statement, and Statement of Account of the complainant she also filed an application seeking permission to file amended memo of parties. All such applications are allowed and documents as well as amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Arguments w.r.t. maintainability of the complaint. Heard.

The case of the complaint interalia is that the complainant took Membership/Loyalty Programme of Accor Plus i.e. OP1 & is holder of Silver Card and such membership gives certain benefit to the complainant, in the listed hotels including of Respondent No. 2, and OP2 is one of such hotel. On 24/05/2022, the complainant along with his guests visited ‘Pling Bar’ a unit of OP2 & placed some orders and tendered the card to the billing counter for availing certain benefits/discounts, on account of membership of OP1 for availing discounts and  made the payment of the bill, however without noticing that the discount has not been given but when this fact was discovered by his Accountant, a letter was written to OP2 as well as OP1 as to why the, discount available on the membership card of OP1, has not been granted and thereafter his colleague wrote a letter/emails to OP2 but of no consequences and ultimately various emails were written and even OP2 was contacted on it’s customer care helpline, but OP2 failed to provide any satisfactory reply which caused great mental pain, agony as well financial loss to the complainant and ultimately he filed the present consumer case alleging deficiency in services on the part of OP1 & OP2 thereby demanding Rs. 5 lakh as compensation, Rs. 30,000/- as legal/professional fee and cost of Rs. 1940/- and also demanded the refund of Rs. 17,948/- taken by Respondent/OP1 & OP2 for loyalty programme membership.

The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. A card of ‘Accor Plus’ is placed on record having no. 3084094 84206618 1 dated 07/2022 in the name of the complainant. The terms & conditions are also attached, and it is pointed out that certain privileges were available to the complainant on the membership of Accor Plus and he was entitled for the same which have not been granted.

The Commission has perused the bill placed on record. Initially the bill had no name on it to show as to, in whose favour the bill has been issued, and therefore arguments were sought to be heard. It was also not clear as to how this bill no. 415161 dated 24/05/2022 relates to the complainant. The complainant then filed documents w.r.t. his Bank Statement of IDFC First Bank having A/C No. 10060588462 in the name of complainant and against the payment made on 24/05/2022 for Rs. 1940/- it shown that this payment was made to ‘Pling Pullman’ from the account of the complainant. However the one number is written in the bank account statement as i.e. 214415034491 and this number is not matching with the bill number submitted by the complainant on the court-file which is Annexure-C-3. Not only this, the number of the bill is also not coming in the statement of bank account of the complainant. Further the number which is reflecting against statement of account is also not matching with the Silver Accor Plus Card as placed on record.

The Commission is of the opinion that if a person has to get/avail some privileges, on the basis of a specific card and he is entitled to certain privileges/loyalties/discount against that card then that number of that card should have been reflected in the bill, so that the discount be claimed as per the terms and conditions of the loyalty card/privilege card/membership, and if this card number is not mentioned in the bill, then whosoever is the service provider, would not give such privilege/discount to the members to whom such card has been issued.  The discount or the privileges are attached to the card, and not to the person or card-holder. The card holder has to ask for the same by providing the same to the billing counter or whatever the arrangement of receiving bill amount has been made by the service provider. Since the number of the membership card is not mentioned on the bill, and also the bill no. 415161 dated 24/05/2022 is not corroborating with the number so mentioned on the statement of account of the complainant, it appears to that the billing counter has no knowledge of the card.

It is no where mentioned in the complaint that the complainant tendered the card to the OP2 billing counter, or the concerned official, refused to acknowledge the same, rather the complainant mentioned that, bill was raised and it was paid, without noticing as to whether discount has been given or not. It is further astonishing that complainant never observed it, rather his accountant observed, it subsequently, and a letter was written by his junior Advocate to OP2. If the complainant would have tendered the card, it would have been in his memory that certain benefits for which he was entitled to on the basis of that membership, have not been given to him. This clarifies that the complainant never opted for the discount part nor claimed it, in the presence of this guest, and as such, no one should be able to know, if the complainant is a privileged member of the scheme. Once the bill, as placed on record, does not mention any card number on it w.r.t. the specific scheme, it cannot be presumed that the complainant asked for it or it was not given or it amounts to deficiency in service. All these discussion is based on the documents so placed on record and any oral explanation of such facts would be barred by Section 91 & Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act and since there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant ever showed/claimed privileges attached to the card to OP2, and since there appears to be no document placed on record which may show that the complainant opted for the benefit of the scheme or was denied, and also therefore in view of all such facts and & in view of absence of necessary pleading & necessary document there appear to be no case, even for summoning the OPs.

 Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is dismissed.       

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to both the parties free of cost as per rules.