Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/465/2014

Smt. Rajesh Kumari Parkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vivek Gupta, Adv.

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	465 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	05.09.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	08.07.2015

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Smt.Rajesh Kumari Parmar w/o Satya Parkash Parmar, r/o House No.2088, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Sh.Satya Parkash Parmar s/o K.S.Parmar, r/o House No.2088, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainants

Versus

 

1]  Country Club (India) Limited, SCO-44/45 above HDFC Bank, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through their authorised officer.

 

2]  Country Club (India) Limited, Fourth and Fifth Floor, Country Kool, Country Club Global Head Quarters Begumpet, Hyderabad, 500016 through their authorised Officer.

 

3]  Amrutha Castle, Country Club India Best Western Amrutha Castle, #5-9-16, Opposite Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500063, through their authorised officer.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Vivek Gupta, Counsel for the                       complainants.

 

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

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainants, being allured by the offers of the OPs regarding tour and travelling packages, entered into an agreement with Country Club (India) Ltd. on 4.6.2013 for Vacation Membership for availing the facility of vacations, tours and traveling i.e. availing the facility of hospitality business of the Opposite Party Club (Ann.C-1 colly.).  Accordingly, on 4.6.2013 the complainants paid Rs.70,000/- as Membership Fee and Rs.56,000/- as annual maintenance cost to the OPs for availing the facility of hospitality business i.e. vacation stay, being operated through clubs, hotels and resorts and marketing vacations for stay etc. of the complainants at different places in India, as offered (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  The complainants in Feb.,2014 made a booking with the Opposite Parties for stay at Hyderabad for the period 27.2.2014 to 2.3.2014, which was confirmed by the Opposite Parties through e-Reservation Confirmation Voucher cum Itinerary/Receipt (Ann.C-3 colly.).  According to the vacation booking/package, the stay was confirmed from 27.2.2014, 2 noon till 2.3.2014, 12 noon for two adults at Opposite Party No.3 – Amrutha Castle, Hyderabad.

 

         It is averred that the complainant No.2 telephonically informed the OPs that complainant No.1 would not be able to travel and as the complainant No.2 was to attend some official meeting etc., so their colleague would be accompanying, to which the OPs assured that there would not be any problem regarding the stay of colleague as the charges had already been paid, but the complainants has to pay extra charges of Rs.1200/- on account of food etc. The complainants got this fact confirmed from the Opposite Parties time and again to avoid any inconvenience.  However, when the complainant NO.2 along with colleague reached at Opposite Party No.3 on 27.2.2014, only his stay has been confirmed but the stay of his colleague was not only denied, but Opposite Party No.3 also misbehaved and ill-treated.  As such, the complainants shifted to another hotel i.e. Hotel Raj Comfort Inn, for their stay (Ann.C-5). This matter was also reported to the OPs through e-mail, but it was not replied. Thus, complainant No.2 in his e-mail requested the OPs to cancel the booking of Amrutha Castle-OP No.3, refund the payment of Rs.1200/- made in advance and cancellation of agreement and refund of all payment (Ann.C-6).  The complainants also sent written notice followed by legal notice, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and admitted the execution of Vacation Purchase Agreement with the complainant No.1 and not with complainant No.2, receipt of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.56000/-.  It is stated that Rs.70,000/- was paid towards the vacation charges, which are one time & non-refundable and Rs.56000/- was towards the lumpsum discounted amount for 10 years.    It is also admitted that the complainant No.1 booked an accommodation at Hyderabad in Feb., 2014 for the period 27.4.2014 till 2.3.2014, which was confirmed only for the complainant No.1 and her spouse i.e. her husband as per the terms of contract, according to which only family members including spouse and 2 children are entitled to benefit of accommodation under the Agreement.  It is denied that Opposite Parties were informed on telephone that instead of complainant No.1, complainant No.2 along with his colleague will be going and their stay was assured.  It is stated that the deposit of Rs.1200/- for food etc. was paid by complainant No.1 as per the agreement, which has no reference to the substitution of any other person/colleague of complainant No.2.  It is denied that the stay of colleague of complainant No.2 or any person other than family members, was confirmed or could have been confirmed by OPs. It is denied that any inconvenience, harassment or ill-treatment was caused with the complainant No.2. It is also stated that even if the complainant no.2 had suffered any inconvenience, that was self created by him and cannot be attributed to the OPs in any way or in any manner, who acted under the terms & conditions of the Vacation Purchase Agreement. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       The Complainant also filed replication 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]       The record on file is sufficient to prove to the extent that the complainants on 4.6.2013 entered into an ‘Vacation Purchase Agreement’ with the OPs by paying Rs.70,000/- as Membership Fee and Rs.56,000/- as annual maintenance cost to the OPs.  Further, it is not denied that during the tenure of the package, a booking was done by the complainants for stay at Amrutha Castle, Country Club India Best Western Amrutha Castle, Saifabad, Hyderabad for the period 27.2.2014 to 2.3.2014, which was confirmed by the Opposite Parties through e-Reservation Confirmation Voucher cum Itinerary/Receipt sent on the e-mail address of complainant No.1 (Ann.C-3 colly.).  There is no dispute that the stay was confirmed from 27.2.2014 - 2 noon till 2.3.2014 - 12 noon for two adults at Amrutha Castle, Hyderabad (OP No.3).

 

7]       After discussing the proved facts, now we shift over to the controversial aspect of the present complaint.

 

8]       It is the version of the complainants that in order to avoid any inconvenience, the above mentioned bookings were done 10 days earlier because they were having an important meeting in Hyderabad.  Added further, that the complainant No.2 telephonically informed the OPs that instead of complainant No.1, their colleague would be accompanying, as complainant No.1 was having some personal difficulty.  It is submitted further that the complainant No.2 was assured by the OPs that there would not be any problem regarding the stay of colleague as the charges had already been paid by them for the stay of two adults and only the complainants have to pay an extra charges of Rs.1200/- on account of food etc., which accordingly was paid (Ann.C-4).  Further submitted that Opposite Parties assured the Complainant No.2 that there is no need to change the name of Complainant No.1 on whose name the booking had been done earlier as she is one of the party to the agreement along with co-applicant and any person either of two can do the booking etc. 

 

9]       The main allegation of Complainant No.1 & 2 is that despite getting all the assurances and confirmations from the OPs in this regard, when the complainant No.2 along with his colleague reached at the booked destination in Hyderabad (OP No.3) at around 6.00 PM for check-in, they were told that only the booking of Complainant No.1 is confirmed and that of the colleague is not confirmed since as per the terms & conditions of the policy only the name listed in the country club as members are allowed.  It is alleged that the Hotel staff of the Opposite Parties at Hyderabad misbehaved and ill-treated them which lead to unnecessary harassment of both of them.  The complainants further alleged that the OPs concealed the fact regarding the stay of only those persons, who are in the country club list and never disclosed it at the time of entering into an ‘Vacation Purchase Agreement’ nor at the time of confirmation of the booking thereafter.  Being harassed at the hands of the Opposite Parties, the complainant NO.2 called for the Opposite Parties to cancel the booking at Amrutha Castle, Country Club, Hyderabad (OP No.3), along with refund of Rs.1200/-, the price of the breakfast, which had taken in advance and also for the cancellation of the agreement with the Opposite Parties vide e-mail dated 28.2.2014 (Ann.C-6) and also issued two successive written notices dated 10.3.2014 and 18.3.2014 respectively, but nothing came out of the same.  Both the complainants have filed their affidavits in evidence stating the whole sequence as narrated above explaining the harassment suffered at the hands of OPs.

 

10]      The Opposite Parties in their defence pleaded that the complainants entered into ‘Vacation Purchase Agreement’ with their free consent and even after going through the terms & conditions thereof. The OPs denied the allegation of Complainant No.2 that he was orally assured that accommodation at Opposite Party No.3 resort could be provided to his colleague also.  The OPs submitted that the written agreement in question supersedes any communication whether written or oral and referred to Clause No.24 of the ‘Vacation Purchase Agreement’ in this regard.  Further, submitted that they never represented to the complainants that any person other than the family of country club member shall be provided with the accommodation under the membership plan and again points towards Clause No.3 of the Agreement to justify the same. In regard to the demands raised by the complainants, the OPs stated that the vacation charges paid by the complainants were non-refundable as per Vacation Purchase Agreement as the same are not deposits.

 

11]      In reference to the above, the question before us is whether the OPs were negligent in providing services to the complainants, when they refused to provide already confirmed accommodation to the colleague of complainant No.2 on 27.2.2014 when reached at Amrutha Castle, Country Club, Hyderabad (OP No.3) against the confirmed booking for two adults.  To decide  the same, it is wise to look into the terms & conditions of the ‘Vacation Purchase Agreement’ entered into between the parties. Further to decide the same, the foremost question needs determination is whether the alleged oral commitment made by the OPs confirming the booking of colleague of the complainants in place of complainant No.1 stands in way of the written agreement entered into between the parties.  For this, we inclined towards Clause No.24 of the ‘Vacation Purchase Agreement’ in question, which states as under:-

“24.   SECOND PARTY      understands that this Agreement (in the printed form ONLY) SUPERCEDES any communication whether written or oral or any variation or hand written remarks rewriting the printed agreement made by the Agents and/or representatives of CCIL of SECOND PARTY to this Agreement and/or any other written communication issued by CCIL representatives (including on Company Letter Head or STAMP PAPER).  Further, SECOND PARTY understands that the benefits and terms of vacation as set out in this Agreement are final and binding on CCIL., and SECOND PARTY.”

 

         It is clear from the above clause that in the existence of the written agreement, there is no value of oral commitment.  Moreover, there is no written commitment by the OPs confirming the booking of colleague in place of complainant No.1. 

 

12]  On thorough perusal of the said agreement, we come across Clause No.3 referred by the Opposite Parties, which states as under:-

 

“3.     All Short term accommodation stays include studio room only (without kitchen) for the selected time for Second Party, Spouse and children below 12 years age.  Second Party, Spouse and 2 children between 12-18 years of age will be provided with an extra bed at Rs.350 in First Party’s owned properties and Rs.500 in affiliates properties.  Second party, spouse and 2 children between the age of 18-25 years will be provided with an extra a studio room at an additional charge, Maximum 3 adults can be accommodated in one studio room, Room allocation depends on eligibility and availability.”

    

         This clause clearly indicates that short term Studio Room accommodation stay is available to second party i.e. Complainant NO.1 being the subscriber of the agreement, her spouse and two children, may they be minor or major and maximum 3 adults can be accommodated into the studio room provided for the vacation stay. The meaning of the ‘adult’ mentioned in the above clause is mis-interpreted by the complainants, who claims that three adults, as mentioned in the clause referred means the subscriber of the agreement, his/her spouse and some other adult (may it be guest) can be accommodated, but factually, the case is not so.  The plain reading of the clause, referred above, refers only to the applicant (subscriber of the agreement), co-applicant and their two children of the age mentioned therein.  Our view is strengthened from the document Ann.C-3, which is e-voucher Itinerary/Receipt confirming the booking of two adults.  One of the Term No.9 of the terms & conditions mentioned in the above receipt states as under:-

“Above 12 years kid will be treated as adult, extra bed charges are applicable.”

 

12]      From the above, it is therefore, concluded that it is only the applicant (subscriber of the agreement), co-applicant and their two children upto the age of 25 years, are entitled to avail the services of the OPs under the Vacation Purchase Agreement and term ‘adult’ includes the child above 12 years of age. Thus, the colleague of the complainants had no right to be accommodated in place of members of family of country club.

 

13]      The ld.Counsel for the complainant in order to justify their stand referred another clause of the Vacation Purchase Agreement, which provides facility of renting out of the vacations to some other person.  The referred Clause No.13 is reproduced as under:-

 

“13.   Renting of vacations can be done through your personal contacts. CCIL does not engaged in renting of vacations.”

 

14]      In our opinion the case of the complainants do not fall under the said Clause No.13, because in the present case, there is no renting of the vacations/accommodation to some other person, rather it is a case of adjustment and replacement only of the kind which was not acceptable to the Opposite Parties, not only due to the terms & conditions of the Vacation Purchase Agreement, but for other reasons also.

 

15]      No doubt, the complainant No.2 tried to justify his visit, along with his colleague by placing on record the affidavit of his wife, who is also the subscriber of the agreement, but that too is not sufficient to declare that their colleague was entitled to be accommodated, it being beyond the terms of the ‘Vacation Purchase Agreement’.  In addition, there is no record placed on file pertaining to the meeting to be held at Hyderabad and the affidavit of the colleague (Ann.CW-3) is also silent about her official status.

 

16]      Keeping in view the facts discussed above, it is concluded that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OPs and as such, the present complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

         While dismissing this complaint, it is worthwhile to mention here that the dismissal of the present complaint shall not affect the right of the complainants under the Vacation Purchase Agreement with the Opposite Parties and does not give any right to the Opposite Parties to cancel the Vacation Purchase Agreement.

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

Announced

8^th July, 2015                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.465 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 8th day of July, 2015

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

 

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