Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/758/2017

Satinder Singh Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

23 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/758/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	23/05/2018

 

Satinder Singh Rana s/o late Sh. Mahipal Singh Rana, resident of House No.314, PEC Campus, Sector-12, Chandigarh, U.T.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Country Club India Limited, 6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 through its Director.

2.     Country Vacations, A Division of Country Club India Limited, SCO No.44-45, Above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its authorised person.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The sum and substance of the allegations are, in the month of April 2016, complainant met the officials of OPs in vicinity of Chandigarh while filling petrol in his vehicle who gave a voucher/coupon and asked him to visit the office of OP-2 as and when the lucky draw of the complainant/consumer is out. Maintained, a call was received from the office of OP-2 informing the complainant being the lucky winner and scheme of 1.45 lacs was given for only Rs.26,000/-. Duration of the scheme was for 21 days and as and when the complainant/consumer would visit charming place, boarding, lodging and meal would be free and would be offered by the officials of the resort duly administered and maintained by OP-1.  Amount of Rs.26,000/- in total was deposited and agreement dated 21.4.2016 was executed hurriedly. Complainant could not understand the terms and conditions being handicapped and hard of hearing and unable to read and understand clearly. Thereafter, in the month of June-July, complainant demanded to give vouchers to enable visit the destination of his choice. Abruptly, further sum of Rs.9,500/- being tax for 7 days was demanded which was illegal being over and above the agreed amount of Rs.26,000/-. In such circumstances, complainant asked for the refund of the amount, but, the same was not refunded. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of the amount of Rs.26,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint reply and admitted, complainant and his wife entered into agreement dated 21.4.21016 and plan opted was “Blue Studio” under which as per clause 1 under the heading vacation benefits in the agreement, complainant was entitled to a stay for a period of upto 6 nights and 7 days each year at OPs properties within India for the next 10 years from the date of agreement i.e. upto 21.04.2016. After negotiations, consideration amount i.e. vacation charges were fixed at Rs.1,45,000/-alongwith annual maintenance charges of Rs.8,500/- which were applicable from the date of agreement.  Reliance placed upon clause 11 of the agreement which reads as under :-

“This is a limited and exclusive offer.  In case full amount of fee is not remitted within 45 days from the date of initial payment, the money remitted till then would be forfeited by the CCHHL and vacations allotted, if any, would be cancelled.”

The other covenants were also referred amount being not refundable and the complainant was signatory to it.  Oral allegations are denied and reference to the precedents of Hon’ble National Commission made.  On these lines, cause is sought to be defended.

3.         Complainant had filed rejoinder and reiterated the allegations maintained in the consumer complaint. 
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, admittedly, a sum of Rs.26,000/- was received by OP-2.  There is no dispute with regard to these facts.  The justification for the non-refund of the amount of Rs.26,000/- given is being non-refundable amount per the terms and conditions of the agreement (Annexure A-1).  Allegations are, the complainant was duped as these were not properly explained and understood by him on account of his disability.
7.         We will refer to Annexure A-5 of the complaint which shows, the complainant is disabled and deaf and the disability is 100%.  It is so scribed in the disability certificate (Annexure A-5). It was also referred, complainant is fit for the job where hearing is not required. Not only this, his wife, for whom this plan was also purchased, is also disabled to the extent of 40%.  This record in itself shows, complainant did not have sense of hearing. Under these circumstances an explanation was required to be given by the OPs that their functionary or say agent by way of gestures made the terms and conditions understood by the complainant. It is not the case, while making the complainant understood the terms and conditions of the agreement (Annexure A-1), help of the interpreter was taken. Under these circumstances, keeping in view the disability of the complainant and his wife some clear cut explanation or say affidavit(s) needed to be furnished of the official(s) who made the terms understood by the complainant.  It is also not made out, complainant is well aware of the English language in which the agreement was scribed so that he very well understood its contents while appending his signatures. Thus, agreement is found shrouded by suspicious circumstances on which convincing explanation had not come from the side of the OPs.
8.         Perusal of the record further shows, complainant had opted for the plan as referred in the consumer complaint and thereafter on demand for accommodation in October, 2016, he did not get the proper response from the officials of the OPs as he intended to visit Kerala in the month of November. The complainant was not satisfied with the answers given.  Annexure A-10 is also a copy of email which also reflects, no accommodation was available.  It is on this service, complainant was unsatisfied and had prayed for the refund of the deposited amount. Again on these facts and deficiency in service no cogent reasons had been explained.  Thus, keeping in view the disability of the complainant, we cannot blindly place reliance on the terms of the agreement Annexure A-1.  The case law referred of the Hon’ble National Commission i.e. case titled as Sanjib Kumar Dey & Anr. Vs. Chabbi Dey & 2 Ors., 2015 (4) CLT 521 held that documentary evidence will always get preponderance over the oral evidence. However, it was not case of disabled person as is in the present case. Therefore, to our mind, this cannot be pressed into service to help the case of the OPs. Reliance was also placed on the case titled as Anita Rathore Vs. Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd. & Ors., Appeal No.207 of 2017 decided on 10.1.2018 by our own Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh.  In this case also, it does not appear the consumer was disabled and, therefore, unable to understand the terms and conditions of the agreement which mandates the non-refund of the amount deposited. Thus, these two precedents are clearly distinguishable with the facts of the present case.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the amount of Rs.26,000/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit by the complainant till realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/05/2018	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President