Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/403/2016

Rimmi Bhatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay Singla

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/403/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	02/06/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	26/10/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Rimmi Bhatti W/o S.Jagdeep Singh Dhillon, R/o H.No.1699, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

(1)  Country Club (India) Limited, Regd. Office #6-3-1219/A, Country Club Kool, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, through its Managing Director, namely Mr.Rajeev Reddy.

 

(2)  Country Club (India) Limited, Office Address #25, Community Centre, East of Kailash, Near Sapana Cinema, New Delhi, through its Regional Officer.

 

(3)  Country Club (India) Limited, Branch Office at SCO 44-45, 2^nd Floor, above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    MRS.SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that allured by the various Holiday facilities offered by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant entered into agreement with them on 06.06.2014 and paid Rs.1,70,000/- vide receipt dated 14.06.2014, whereafter she was issued Membership No. CVCDG1CLUB30LB177107 and assured that she can avail holidays to Hongkong and Singapore. It has been alleged that the Complainant tried number of times to contact the Opposite Parties but to no success and the booking was not allotted to her. Eventually, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to cancel her Membership and to return the amount charged from her under the false promise, but no effective steps were taken by the Opposite Parties. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case have pleaded that it was the Complainant herself who was required to book the holidays online as per the vacation agreement and she has not even mentioned and has not attached any proof as to when she tried to book the holidays online. Further, Hongkong and Singapore are not there in the list of places where properties of Opposite Parties are situated. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statements by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

 

7.      The grievance of the Complainant is that despite obtaining the Membership of the Opposite Parties for availing the facilities of the holidays, she could not avail the booking to Hongkong and Singapore. Due to which the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to cancel her Membership and refund the amount paid, which was not acceded to. After minutely going through the entire documentary evidence available on the file, we are not impressed with the contention of the Complainant, in as much as, she has miserably failed to place on record any such cogent, convincing and reliable piece of document to substantiate her claim wherein the Opposite Parties had committed to provide booking facilities for Hongkong and Singapore. 

 

8.      The learned counsel for the Complainant argued that despite repeated requests and personal entreaties, the Opposite Party did not refund the full amount paid by the Complainant. We have gone through the Vacations Agreement entered into between the parties, annexed at Annexure C-1, which shows that the vacation charges are non-refundable. Clause 21 of the said Agreement is relevant for the apt decision of the issue and is reproduced herein below:-

 

“21. The Second Party undertakes that THE VACATION CHARGES IS NON REFUNDABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES and that THE VACATION FEE IS NOT A REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT.”    

 

          In view of the afore-extracted clause, it is emphatically clear that the vacation charges is non-refundable and moreover, when the Complainant is herself signatory to the aforesaid Vacation Agreement, she cannot be allowed to back track from the same and to raise a demand for refund of the vacation charges paid by her. In these set of circumstances, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

9.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26^th October, 2016                                           

Sd/-

 [SURJEET KAUR]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-                      

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”