Order No. 30 dated 16/03/2017
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant no.1 is a retired govt. employee. The representative of o.p. told the complainant that they are engaged in the hospitality industries, as travelling agencies and owners of several tourist lodges and resorts in India as well as outside India and also claimed that the o.p. organizes various programmes of tours and entertainment programmes in different places. While the complainants visited a mall near Apollo Gleneagles Hospital at that time one person claiming to be agent of Country Vacation and noted the residential address of the complainant and mobile number. The complainants thereafter received a message from o.p. no.2 that the complainants were the lucky winner of seven days accommodation free of cost at the Country Club Proprieties, and requested the complainant no.1 for collecting the gift voucher. The complainant went to o.p. no.1 and he was informed about a holiday gift voucher market value of Rs.25,000/- and it was further informed that the complainant no.1 will have to pay Rs.4000/- as administrative charge to avail the gift voucher facilities of seven days accommodation. The complainant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.36,000/- for availing of that facility. Immediately on the same day one official of the company of o.p. visited the house of the complainants and received an amount of Rs.15,000/- in cash and Rs.15,000/- by cheque towards membership subscription. After receiving the amount the o.ps. have not extended any sort of actual benefits to the complainants. The complainant no.1 afterwards came to know the various members were deceived by o.ps. for which the complainants demanded the money paid by them. Since no facility was provided to the complainants, for which they being frustrated sent a notice demanding the said amount but the same was not replied. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the said amount of Rs.30,000/- along with compensation and litigation cost.
The o.p. no.2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainants have not filed the original document, therefore the case of the complainants is not maintainable. It was further stated that not accepting a demand to terminate a contract does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The o.p. no.2 stated that the complainants were offered a seven days holiday gift voucher issued on 1.10.10 which expired on 1.10.11 for which the complainants themselves were at fault. In order to avail of the membership the complainants had to pay Rs.36,000/- but they paid only Rs.30,000/- which is not full amount having the membership of o.p. no.2. In view of the said fact o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In spite of receipt of notices o.p. nos.1 and 3 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainants had taken the membership of o.p.
- Whether the o.p. misled the complainants for acceptance of the membership of o.p.
- Whether the complainants were given any service by o.p.
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that the complainants on the basis of the assurance given by o.p. that they would be provided by accommodation and also they make arrangement for various programme of the club and allured the complainants in such manner the complainants had to accept the membership but subsequently with the passing of days, months, etc. the complainants found that no programme was organized and no activities were found on the basis of the o.p., moreover complainants were not provided any accommodation for their stay without payment of any cost. The o.p. never organized any tour programme and when asked as to why the complainants were not provided with the facility as assured by o.p. to which o.p. told the complainants that hidden cost were involved and for lodging and also for availing of the tourist places complainants will have to pay the charges. The complainants wrote several letters to o.p. but no reply was given. Being dissatisfied with the non performance and for creating false assurance by o.p. the complainant demanded the amount to which o.p. denied for which complainant had to file this case praying for relief.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainants had entered into an agreement with o.p. and accepted the membership on their accord and no influence or coercion were exercised and once the complainants entered into the agreement complainants cannot deviate from the said agreement and the same is binding upon the complainants. Apart from the said fact o.p. is not travel agency or they do not organize any programme and whenever complainants being educated persons entered into the said agreement they were fully aware regarding the function of the said club, subsequently by raising false allegation against the o.p. cannot be believed and in order to squeeze the money from o.p. such false case was filed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears in most of the cases which are pending against the o.p. in this Forum there are same allegations against the o.p. that they influenced the parties in such manner by alluring them for providing with accommodation in big cities without payment of any charge after acceptance of membership and other benefits are also assured and with the enticement of such assurance the parties are enticed to accept the membership. Most of the cases it is found that he senior citizens are the target of o.p. and by taking advantage on their advance age and after coming to know the status of the parties o.p. gives false promise to the parties by showing them some places of interest in big cities where they have their own guest houses which will be provided to the members for their short stay by providing all sorts of amenities but ultimately no such facilities are provided and also assures the parties to organize different programmes with the active participation of members but no such programme ever held by o.p. By such misdeed on the part of the o.p. itself creates confusion in the mind of the members and most of the cases the members pray for return of the amount paid by them including the cost of mental agony and litigation expenses. From the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the parties it appears that ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 emphasized that no document was filed by the complainants but on perusal of the record we find that the complainants filed the original documents including the agreement entered into with o.p. As such the argument advanced by ld. lawyer for o.p. no.2 cannot be accepted. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the same thing had happened and the complainant no.1 is a retired central govt. officer and the complainant no.2 is the wife and they jointly filed this case with the same allegation that they were not provided with any accommodation or any programme was organized by o.p. within the several months of acceptance of the membership though assured by o.p., therefore we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. and also unfair trade practice committed by o.p. and as such, the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.289/2012 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.2 and ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.3 and dismissed without cost against the o.p. no.1. The o.p. nos.2 and 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the complainants a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only 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.
