Order No.  20  dt. 11/05/2017

            The case of the complainant as it appears in brief is that the complainant signed a prescribed form on 13.06.2012 for entering into an agreement for membership for country club division, Kolkata and vacation membership for outside tours in India as well as in other countries to be selected subsequently during the period of five years (2012-2017) holiday and clubbing under category (C) - Blue by leveling it as standard priority-standard pricing on payment of Rs.50,000/- for two adults and two children. The country club division, Kolkata located at 123, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata, a division Country Club (I) Ltd  issued Holiday Gift voucher with voucher code 73729650 on the same day on 13.06.2012 in favour of the complainant. In turn  the complainant deposited membership fee of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.40,000/- against two temporary receipt no.0616-572 and 0616-573 both dated 21.06.2012 with the instruments of  HDFC Bank cheque no.52641901 and 46178730 respectively, where in it was stated that all disputes in this respect would be under the jurisdiction of the country club, 6-3-1219 Begumpet, Hyderabad -500016. The membership entitles holiday package (room only) (A) 2 nights 3 days; (B) 6 nights 7 days per year at CCIL properties in India and Sri Lanka and other chosen places of the company. The Country Club India Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad accepted the membership proposal of the complainant by issuing a letter dt. 20.07.2012 with registering his membership no. CCKK3 club 5SB61127 and demanding a balance due of Rs.5,000/- subject to the terms and condition in the contract agreement where in it was stated that as a club.member and 5 years 2N 3D Blue SR U12 member the complainant required to pay further amount of Rs.2,500/- as annual administration charges, irrespective of usages.    

Before receiving the letter of acceptance the complainant planned to go Mandermoni, W.B.  from 19.08.2012 to 21.08.2012 in consultation with the staff of Kolkata office and booked Railway ticket vide PNR No.6604760256 and 6111696084. Complainant also planned to go to Mumbai and Goa and made arrangements for reservation ticket in trains. But after receiving the letter the complainant became stunned as the Scenario of the Membership facilities as furnished in the letter had changed dramatically against the facilities assured previously. The discrepancy noted by the complainant were brought to the notice of the concerned authority in Kolkata office through complaint no.2636 and they assured for rectification in this respect would  be made from Hyderabad office of the  o.ps i.e. o.p.no.1. But o.p.1 failed to make any rectification and asked the complainant to pay Rs.1250/- as luxury tax for booking at Mondermoni Hotel in addition to annual administration charge of Rs.2,500/-. Complainant opted for cancellation of the membership and did the needful to that effect and the letter of cancellation was sent to o.p.1 by Registered Post and also with e-mail on 28.08.2012. A reminder was also issued on 05.10.2012. But  no action on the part of the o.p-1 forced the complainant to lodge complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for deficiency in service as well as UTP against the o.ps and prayed for relief seeking refund of Rs.45,000/-,compensation of Rs20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs5000/-.

OPs has contested this case by filing w/v and denied all material allegation  inter alia has stated that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of the provisions of the consumer protection Act,1986 and the present dispute is not a consumer dispute and as such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed in limini.

            Ld lawyer of the o.p. has argued that the complainant obtained membership worth Rs.50,000/- wherein he has made only part payment of Rs.45,000/- towards membership fee. Complainant has also executed an agreement in  this regard, after perusing the terms and conditions. Complainant claims that commitments made by the executives of the o.ps are contrary to terms of agreement. In this regard it is stated that the complainant has read, agreed to the terms and conditions and executed the agreement. Hence the complainant has complete knowledge of the facilities, terms and conditions.  As per the welcome letter provided to the complainant it is clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.5,000/- is due from his end towards membership fee. In terms of the agreement in question the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- against the membership but the complainant only paid the amount of Rs.45,000/- only out of the total amount of Rs.50,000/- and the rest of the amount of Rs.5,000/- was not paid as yet by the complainant and thereafter the complainant intentionally filed the instant case for the purpose of illegal gain. And as such the complainant had no locus standi to file this case before this Ld. Forum and for which the complaint case is liable to be dismissed since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps and the o.ps acted in accordance with the agreement clause.

Decision with reasons

Upon hearing all the parties and on perusal of materials on record we have observed that an agreement was executed between complainant and the o.p. on 13.06.2012. Complainant paid Rs.45,000/- towards membership fee. Subsequently complainant came to know that he had to pay Rs.1250/- per day as luxury Tax in addition for booking Mondermoni Hotel against membership fee. But at the time of executing the agreement o.p. told the complainant to pay only Rs.45,000/- which was paid by the complainant.

            O.p.2 allured and  assured that the complainant would enjoy 6 Nights 7 days package for a period of 5 years under Blue season category. Facility offered by the Hyderabad office ie, op-1 against facility assured by the Calcutta office ie, op-2  has made the complainant aggrieved and thereby complainant had left out of the agreement as there was the scope to  be opt out of it.

            It is clear from the above discussion that o.p.2 has misrepresented  the complainant by giving so many promises to him for giving lucrative services and gifts. They adopted the unfair trade practice by entering into agreement by taking less amount. They knew that when the complainant asked for the service for any touring spot like Mandermani  from o.p. they would take the plea of outstanding amount, luxury tax & annual maintenance cost etc.

            In view of above discussion we find deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. and as such complainant is entitled to get relief.

            As a result the complaint petition succeeds.

Hence, ordered.

That the case no.732/2013 is allowed on contest with cost.

            The o.ps are directed to refund Rs.45,000/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-. O.ps are also directed to pay jointly and severally the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of communication of this order i.d., an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the  complainant till full realization.

              Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.