Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/72/2016

Darshana Rohilla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Club (India) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	72 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	01.02.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	10.06.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Darshana Rohilla, 304/6, Trishla Plus Homes, Peer Mushella, P.O. Dhakoli, NAC Zirakpur.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]   Country Club (India) Ltd., Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16 Saifabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad 500063 (Through its Manager/Authorised Signatory)

 

2]  Country Vacations, SCO- 44-45, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160015 (through its Manager/Authorised Signatory)

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU   MEMBER

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:-

            Complainant in person.

Sh.Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for the OPs.

           

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

         As per the case, the complainant purchased the membership of Country Vacation on 13.10.2013 for a period of 30 years for 6 nights & 7 days as year, from Opposite Party NO.2 and paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Ann.1). The complainant also paid the maintenance fee of Rs.8427/- for the period 2013-2015 (Ann.2).  It is averred that as & when the complainant tried to book holidays, the Opposite Party No.1 denied the same citing one reason or the other.  It is also averred that on 22th Sept., 2015 the complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to book a holiday in Shirdi for one night, but as usual, the same was denied saying that she had not deposited the maintenance fee of Rs.2000/-.  The complainant paid the maintenance fee of Rs.2000/- but even then the Opposite Party No.1 kept on neglecting the request of the complainant.  It is submitted that even on return journey, the complainant requested to book a room in Jaipur, but the same was denied by Opposite Party No.1. As such, the complainant sent email (Ann.3) to the Opposite Parties for refund the membership fee on the basis of not providing satisfactory service, but the refund was denied.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said acts & conducts of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and admitted the membership of complainant and receipt of amount thereof, as alleged.  It is stated that as per the Vacation Purchase Agreement (Ann.1), the vacation fee is non-refundable deposit. It is submitted that the booking for Shirdi was given to the complainant and the procedure to book holidays was online, as agreed vide Vacation Purchase Agreement. It is also submitted that as per clause 12 of the agreement, it was settled that all holidays are subject to availability, 24^th December to 3^rd January are blocked out dates, member with “Blue” season i.e. having blue week has to book holidays between 60 days to45 days before the date of desired holidays dates and lower category can book only after higher category books it. It is further submitted that the moment she booked the holiday at Shirdi, Confirmation Vouchers were issued to her on 22.9.2015 itself, showing booking for check-in dated 23.9.2015 and check out dated 24.9.2015 at Hotel Matrix at for 2 adults with payment of an advance amount of Rs.1000/- (Ann.R-2 & R-3). It is pleaded that the amount of Rs.2000/- was charged as per the Agreement on an extra studio room at an additional charge. It is denied that on return journey, the complainant requested for booking room at Jaipur which was denied.  It is also pleaded that seeking cancellation of membership and claiming refund of entire amount, after already having availed the facilities under it, is not tenable. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of Opposite Parties.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has subscribed for the purchase of Vacation Membership with the OPs by signing an agreement dated 13.10.2013 against which an amount of Rs.1.20 lacs was paid to enjoy the services of the OPs for the next 30 years, in terms of the Terms & Conditions’ applicable to both the parties mentioned in Ann.A-1, placed on record by the complainant.  The complainant made a payment of Rs.8427/- on 11.3.2014 towards Annual Maintenance Charges.  The complainant was also promised 2 nights/3 days complementary holiday vide Ann.A-2.  The complainant claims that on repeated occasions, the OPs failed to provide her with holiday package, as and when she expressed her desire for the same. The complainant finally was successful in getting a Holiday booked at Shirdi, but she was made to pay Rs.2000/- extra, though she was dissatisfied and on her return journey, she requested to book a room at Jaipur, which was denied on account of failure to pay the maintenance fee for the period 2014-15.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, she has prayed for the relief quoted in the complaint.

 

7]       The OPs while denying the allegations of the complainant, have claimed that in the first instance the complainant had not paid the Annual Maintenance Fee/Charges and on such ground, she was not allowed to book holidays with them.  The complainant made the payment towards the Annual Maintenance Charges on 11.3.2014, which is admitted by the OPs, as a complementary offer 2 nights/3 days holidays were offered to the complainant.  The OPs while contesting the allegation with regard to payment of Rs.2000/-, have held their ground that the same was on account of additional accommodation, which was sought by the complainant and the complainant was duty bound to pay such amount as was applicable. Thus claiming no deficiency in service on their part, have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the complainant and the terms and conditions of the Vacation Purchase Agreement (Ann.A-1) reads as under:-

“All Short Terms accommodation stays include studio room only (without kitchen) for the selected time for Second Party, Spouse and 2 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.

 

9]      Though the complainant has claimed that she was compelled to pay Rs.2000/- during her visit to Shirdi, but has failed to demonstrate that the same was against the terms & conditions of the Vacation Purchase Agreement. The complainant has not disclosed the exact number of her family members, which had planned their visit to Shirdi by placing on record such details or travelling tickets to substantiate the same.  Therefore, the version of the OPs that an additional room was provided at the demand of the complainant for her family members and she was required to make such payments for occupancy of an additional room, as per the agreement, is justified.

 

10]      The complainant has also alleged that on numerous occasions she had tried to book accommodation, but the same was not made available on one pretext or the other by the OPs, but there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation, as no documentary proof has been placed on record by the complainant. It is also necessary to mention here that even the Annual Maintenance Charges paid by the complainant in March, 2014, was paid after a period of 6 months of having entered into the agreement with the OPs in the month of Oct., 2013.  Therefore, the claim of the OPs about the denial of vacation services on account of non-payment of Annual Maintenance Charges in the year 2015 is justified and the complainant’s demand for refund of entire amount of Rs.1.20 lacs even after availing the services of the OPs for her visit to Shirdi, is completely unjustified, as the said amount is non-refundable as per the terms & conditions of the Vacation Purchase Agreement.

 

11]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

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

Announced

10^th June, 2016                                                            Sd/-

                                                        (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER