Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/580/2018

Ramandeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Club India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj K. Sharma Adv.

03 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	580/2018
Date of Institution	:	17.10.2018
Date of Decision	:	03.10.2019

 

                                 

                                        

1.    Ramandeep Kaur wife of Jatinder Singh r/o # 212, Motia Hights, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Ajitgarh (SAS Nagar, Mohali).

2.    Jatinder Singh son of Sh.Harlochan Singh r/o # 212, Motia Hights, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Ajitgarh (SAS Nagar, Mohali).

                           ...  Complainants.

Versus

 

1. Country Club India Ltd., through its Managing Director Office at Amrutha Castle, 5-9, Safiabad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Branch Office of Chandigarh, Country Club India Ltd. (A division of Country Club), at SCO 44-45, above PNB Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Manoj K.Sharma, Adv. for the complainant

                Sh.Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.        Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that Smt.Ramandeep Kaur, complainant No.1 purchased a membership of the OPs No.1 and 2 by paying Rs.41000/- as membership fee out of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the policy.  The complainant No.1 executed an agreement for vacation membership with OPs on 24.09.2014 and the complainant no.2 being second party also signed the said agreement. It has further been averred that as per the membership agreement, the complainants are entitled to stay for a period of every year for upto 6 nights and 7 days each year  in the OPs properties within India for the next 10 years from the date of agreement. The OPs have also assured the complainants that they were having link with 50 properties as mentioned in para 4 of the agreement vide its number 4318 including all major tourist part  of India with Dubai, Philippines, Bangkok, Quawin across the world.   In summer vacations of 2018, they decided to go Shimla for 3 nights 4 days and approached the OPs to make arrangements for the rooms but they failed to provide the facility in Shimla despite the fact that the name of Shimla was mentioned there.  It has further been averred that they did not avail any holiday voucher till date since the date of taking membership. They visited the Shimla at their own expenses but the OPs did not support them.  It has further been averred that the OPs have grabbed Rs.41,000/- on the pretext that they have become Blue Members. Subsequently, they got served a legal notice dated 19.07.2018 upon the OPs to refund the deposited amount but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.
2.        In their written statement, the OPs have pleaded that after negotiations the consideration amount i.e. the membership fee charges was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainants have made only an initially amount of Rs.11,000/- on 27.09.2014 and Rs.3,0000/- on 24.10.2016 which was towards one-time non-refundable vacation charges.  It has further been pleaded that as per Clause-1 of the  Vacations agreement under the heading “Vacation benefits, the complainants were entitled to  stay for a period of every year for upto 6 nights and 7 days each year  in the OPs properties within India for the next 10 years from the date of agreement upto 2024.   It has further been pleaded that the vacation charges is non-refundable under any circumstances and that the vacation fee is not a refundable deposit. However, as a good will gesture, the complainant was given a waiver of annual maintenance charges for the year but the complainant has not cleared his annual maintenance charges for the period from 27.09.2015 to 27.09.2019. The OPs also took preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by time and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.        The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.  
4.        We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.        The first preliminary objection of the OPs that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the agreement in question between the parties was executed at Chandigarh as is evident from the stamp of the OPs affixed on the bottom of the agreement and as such the Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
6.        The next preliminary objection of the OPs that the complaint barred by time also deserves to be rejected on the ground that the membership was valid for 10 years from the date of the agreement i.e. upto year 2024 as per the averments made by the OPs in para (ii) of the preliminary objections of the written statement.  Besides this, the complainants have deposited a part payment of Rs.30,000/- towards the membership with the OPs on 24.10.2016  as is evident from receipt (Annexure C-2) whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainants on 18.10.2018 and as such the complaint filed by the complainants is well within limitation as prescribed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7.        The next question to be determined in this case is as to whether the complainants are entitled to refund of Rs.41000/- as prayed for or not. 
8.        Perusal of Clause 9 of the Vacations Agreements (Annexure C-1) depicts that the complainants were required to pay the annual maintenance charges  from the date of the agreement to the OPs but they failed to do so. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants were given a waiver of annual maintenance charges for the first year i.e. 27.09.2014 to 27.09.2015 as a goodwill gesture but despite this they did not bother to clear the annual maintenance charges for the period from 27.09.2015 to 27.09.2019 as per the terms of the agreement in question and as such the complainants are themselves at a default.  
9.        Perusal of Clause 11 of the Vacations Agreements (Annexure C-1) reveals that the complainants were required to  make the full amount of the fee within  45 days from the date of the initial payment  failing  which the money remitted till then was to be forfeited by the OPs and the vacations allotted, if any, was to be cancelled. Admittedly, the complainants have paid the amount of Rs.41,000/- only  (i.e. Rs.11,000/- on 27.09.2014 and Rs.30,000/- on 24.10.2016)  and thereafter they did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.59,000/- and the annual maintenance charges as per the terms and conditions of the agreement in question. They could utilize the vacations upon full payment of the membership whereas they have paid only a sum of Rs.41,000/- out of Rs.1,00,000/- and as such the complainants themselves have failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
10.        Besides this it has been clearly mentioned in the agreement that the vacation charges is non-refundable under any circumstances and that the vacation fee is not a refundable deposit. When the Counsel for the complainants was asked as to whether the complainants are entitled to seek refund of Rs.41,000/- paid to the OPs for getting the Membership as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, he has not been able to give to any satisfactory answer to the query.  A close scrutiny of the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement for Vacation Membership dated 24.09.2014 (Annexure C-1) entered between the complainants and the OP-Company shows that the Membership Fees is non-refundable under any circumstances and that the membership fee is not a refundable deposit.  The said Agreement was duly signed by the complainants and the authorized signatory of the OPs and as such the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the said contract/agreement. Since as per the terms and conditions of contract entered between the parties, the membership fees is non-refundable and, therefore, the complainants have no right to seek the refund thereof.
11.        In view of the above discussion, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainants are at liberty to avail the benefits of the membership as per the agreement on clearing the outstanding dues of the OPs.
12.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03/10/2019                                      

Sd/-

   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER