Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/159/2016

Swaranjit Singh Saraon - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/159/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	09/03/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	16/11/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Swaranjit Singh Saraon s/o Lt. Col Harcharan Singh Saron (Retd.) and resident of house NO.112, Sector 36A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Country Club (India) Ltd. (CCIL), 6-3,1219 Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.

 

[2]  Country club (India) Ltd., (CCIL) 25 Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi-65, through its Managing Director.

 

[3]  Country Club (India) Ltd., (CCIL), SCO 44-45, Second floor, Sector 9D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant on the allurement of the OPs purchased Blue Studio 30 years membership of OPs, which entitled him studio type accommodation for holidays. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.6938/- towards the membership.  In the year 2014 the complainant decided to take first holiday with CCIL. In May 2014 the complainant made a confirmed booking through CCIL at Hyderabad and Goa with stay at Amrutha Castle, Hyderabad from 19^th June to 22^nd June 2014 and at Royal Assagao, Goa (an affiliate of CCIL) from June 24 to 27 June, 2014.  The grouse of the complainant is that the OPs contrary to their promise provided him and his family members unsafe, poor and sub-standard accommodation, which caused a lot of mental agony to the complainant and his family.      Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

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

 

3.      The OPs in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant himself booked the property Amrutha Castle at Hyderabad and the complainant was  aware of the fact that he did not book studio type room while he was issued the confirmation booking voucher and he has not raised any objection on the same.  Moreover the complainant neither raised any grievance regarding studio room at the time of check nor asked for upgradation to higher category of rooms if he was not satisfied.  The term room and   not studio room was mentioned in the vouchers and the complainant himself opted for the same.  It is pleaded that nobody stopped the complainant from booking more than one room and complainant also never raised any grievance on receipt of the said vouchers which impliedly shows that he wanted to book single room only and not studio room or more than one room.  It is further pleaded that the allegation of the complainant are afterthought and without any evidentiary proof. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.      The sole grouse of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties failed to provide the services as per the Agreement/ Membership terms & conditions. It has been contended that instead of Studio type accommodation, an ordinary accommodation was allotted to the Complainant, which was unsafe, poor and sub-standard accommodation, which caused lot of physical and mental harassment to him and his family members.

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant himself did not book Studio type room and even did not raise any objection for the same after getting allotted an ordinary room as per the conformation booking brochure. It was for the Complainant to pay more to get the upgradation to the higher category of rooms, if he was not satisfied.

 

9.      The first point to be considered is whether the Complainant was entitled for Blue Studio room or not. We have gone through the Vacations Purchase Agreement available at Pg.No.10 of the paper book. It is evident from Clause 3 of the said Agreement that all short term accommodation stays include studio room only. Therefore, we feel that there should not be any question of which kind of room was asked for by the Complainant when it is well understood after paying the full Membership money, that too in advance, the Complainant was entitled for Blue Studio only.  

 

10.      The Opposite Parties have contended that the Complainant never brought his inconvenience to the notice of the Opposite Parties. However, we do not find any merit in this contention as the Opposite Parties have themselves admitted that the Complainant forwarded feedback on the computer at the checkout point to the Head Office. Meaning thereby, being professionals and dealing with various clients/ visitors every other day, it was obligatory on the part of the Opposite Parties to reply to the Complainant when he expressed his inconvenience through various e-mails and reminders annexed with the Complaint. Unfortunately, the Complainant follow-up the issue for a long time of one year, but no solution was provided to him, till filing of the present Complaint.

 

11.      Undoubtedly, the property of the Opposite Parties is for its Clients/ Consumers, but even if it is of good standards, it needs regular maintenance, so that the Visitors visiting these places do not face any problem and instead of having fun they go back home being harassed physically and mentally. Therefore, the insensitivity on the part of the Opposite Parties proves their unprofessional approach, which certainly has caused great physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.       

 

12.      So far as the question of refund of Membership fee is concerned, there is no such clause that the same is refundable under any circumstances. In this view of the matter, the same cannot be accepted. However, since the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant, to our mind, they are liable to compensate the Complainant adequately and fairly. Hence, on account of the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant, Rs.30,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded as compensation.

 

13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

[a]  To make payment of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[b]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

14.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs as at Sr. No.[b] above.
15.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

16^th November,2016                                           Sd/-                          (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                     Sd/-       

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                  

“Dutt”                                                                              MEMBER