Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/609/2014

Ravinder Kumar Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Club (India) Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	609 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	26.11.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	27.07.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ravinder Kumar Goel, R/o # 542, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.  

 

             …..Complainants

Versus

 

Country Club (India) Limited, SCO No.44-45, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for                       complainant.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, being allured by the offers of the Opposite Party to become a member of the club for ten years vacations, signed an agreement on 27.1.2014 with the Opposite Party and also paid Rs.1.00 lakh (Ann.C-1 & C-2). It is averred that the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the Opposite Party as they failed to provide the membership of gold club as promised. The complainant also came to know that Opposite Party do not own any club in Zirakpur and thus, no facility for indoor games, swimming SPA etc. was provided.  The complainant was also told that he shall be provided with a GYM in the vicinity of his residence, but the same was not done, rather membership of a fitness centre in Sector 9 was offered, which place is far from his residence. It is also averred that the complainant tried to book vacations on online portal for Manali, Dharamshala and Mussoorie for the month of June, 2014, but the same were not available. The complainant requested for refund, followed by reminder (Ann.C-3), but nothing was done.  It is pleaded that complainant planned to have holiday in December and as such again visited the booking portal of Opposite Party on 2.10.2014 to 6.10.2014, but he was informed that the destinations desired are either sold out or not available at given dates.  Then the complainant tried for Mumbai, Goa & Lonavala, but the same story for all the destinations (Ann.C-4 to C-6 & C-7 colly.).  It is pleaded that the said act & conduct of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite party has filed reply and admitted the execution of membership agreement with the complainant and payment of Rs.1.00 lakh made by the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant was given Blue Membership. It is also stated that the complainant after being satisfied with all the terms & conditions of the agreement and in particular that Membership fee under both the Agreements is non-refundable, agreed to take the Membership of Opposite Party and paid Rs.One lakh.  It is submitted that the alleged facilities vis-à-vis gold club membership, own club at Zirakpur, were never part of the agreement.  It is also submitted that the complainant is resident of Chandigarh and therefore, the allegation that he was promised gym in Zirakpur is cooked up, however, for other facilities, like indoor games, swimming pool, spa etc., the Opposite Party has always ready to provide the same as per the agreement, but the complainant never availed of these facilities.  It is pleaded that the complainant never booked any vacation in June, 2014.  Moreover, an annual maintenance charges of Rs.8000/- are due which are necessary to clear before availing any facility and it has been acknowledged by the complainant in Club Membership Purchase Agreement. It is also pleaded that in the Billionaire Vacations Agreement (Ann.C-1), it is mentioned that 24^th December to 3^rd January are blocked out dates.  However, the Opposite Party tried to accommodate the complainant and thus told to check out destinations and available dates at the internet web-link.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

 

3]       The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in written statement.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

        

6]       It is admitted by the OP that the complainant entered into Purchase Agreement For Club and Vacation Membership (Ann.C-1) by paying an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Similarly, it is not disputed that the complainant was also given Club Membership vide Purchase Agreement worth Rs.25,000/- as free of cost (Ann.C-1). It is the allegation of the complainant that despite paying Rs.1.00 lacs, the OP failed to provide the benefit promised under the above said agreement.  Narrating the cause to file the present complaint, it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that when he tried to opt vacations through Online Portal Facility of the OP for Manali, Dharamshala and Mussoorie in the month of June, 2014, the same were not available and when opted for another option, he was asked to pay Rs.1000/- per night.  On enquiry, it was disclosed to him that since, he had not paid annual maintenance charges of Rs.8000/-, so he is required to pay Rs.1000/- as demanded.  It is submitted further that being unsatisfied with the services of the OP, the complainant sent an e-mail dated 21.6.2014 claiming refund of his amount followed by reminders dated 10.8.2014 and 18.8.2014 (Ann.C-3), but the OP did not turn up an inch.  Further submitted that when the OP failed to meet out the request of the complainant for refund, he again tried to avail the benefit under the said agreement and planned for December vacation. For the same, the complainant visited the booking portal of the OP on 2.10.2014 to 6.10.2014 as booking is to be done 40 to 45 days prior to the vacations, but was informed that destination desired are either sold out or not available at the given dates.  After that the complainant tried for Mumbai, Goa & Lonavala and the same story was repeated again. Claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant prayed for the refund with ancillary relief.

 

7]       The Opposite Party in its defence tried to shift its burden by submitting that since the complainant did not pay the Annual Maintenance charges of Rs.8000/- per year, mandatory to be paid under the said agreements (Ann.C-1), so was not entitled for the benefits of the facilities under the said agreements (Ann.C-1).  The Opposite Party denied that the complainant ever approached them with a request of booking in June, 2014.  Further, admitted that since 24^th December to 3^rd January are blocked out dates due to heavy rush, so the complainant could not succeed in his booking.  Submitted further that under the above said agreements (Ann.C-1), the amount once paid is non-refundable as per its terms & conditions, so the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. 

 

8]       From the above, it is clear that the complainant despite making the payment of Rs.1.00 lakh under the Billionaire Vacations Agreement failed to avail any benefit promised therein. The e-mail dated 21.6.2014 (Ann.C-3) is evident of the fact that the complainant, when failed to get the bookings of his desired destinations, asked for the refund of the amount paid to the OP, followed with reminders, but there is no response by the OP to the said demand. Even again when the complainant approached for the vacation booking on the portal facility of the OP 45 to 60 days prior to Dec., 2014, there was no availability of the choised destination, as it is noted that either the same has been sold out or not available for the given dates. The OP also admitted in its defence that 24^th December to 3^rd January are blocked out dates and the same has also been mentioned in the above said agreement.  Presumably any person who has invested his hard earned money for the purchase of enjoying holidays with his family would avail such facility during the holidays, which come in a Calendar year.  It is common knowledge that all such holidays either fall during school or college holidays of the children or to the government employees during vacations and festivals.  The Opposite Party has cleverly blocked out one such occasion while drafting the terms & conditions of the agreement, which is patently against the very purpose for which the complainant has agreed to avail the facility of the Opposite Party.  Mentioning of blocked out dates (24^th December to 3^rd January) is not only an act of arbitrariness but certainly is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.    

 

9]       In our opinion, it is proved in this complaint that the system of the OP is not transparent enough. The record reveals that the details of the booking is not shown on the portal facility of the Opposite Party.    

 

10]      The other ground for defence taken by the OP is that since the complainant has not paid the ‘Annual Maintenance Charges’ mandatory to be paid under ‘Club & Vacation Membership Agreement’, so he cannot avail the facility, is not tenable as there is no record showing that they ever demanded the said amount from the complainant. The OP had referred that the mandate to pay the ‘Annual Maintenance Charges’ is mentioned in the ‘Billionaire Vacations Agreement’ entered into between the parties, but we are of the view that it was the duty of the OP to ask for the amount so remained unpaid, so that the complainant could have enjoyed the benefits of the Billionaire Vacations Agreement.  It is observed that tactfully the OP kept silent by not demanding the annual maintenance charges knowing well that in the absence of such payment the complainant could never avail the benefits under the agreement and the amount of Rs.1.00 lakh paid by the complainant is enough to enrich their coffers. Such unjust enrichment is wrongful gain of the OP and the complainant is fully entitled to get it back.  It is a matter of common sense that when a person can spent huge amount of Rs.1.00 lacs to avail the benefits under the said agreement, then to pay such meager amount of Rs.8000/- is not very difficult to meet out.  As the complainant could not avail the benefits under the agreement, so there is no question to retain the amount paid thereunder.

 

11]      Keeping in view of the above observations, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP is proved.  Therefore, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed as under:-

1. To refund Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant;
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment;
3. To pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of order till it is paid, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

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

Announced

27.07.2015          

                                                                                      

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.609 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 27th day of July, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member