1. Subrata Ghosh,
2. Kalyani Ghosh,

Both residing at Flat No.1D,

Block No.3, Club Town Estates,

87, Dum Dum Road, Kolkata-74._________ Complainants

____Versus____

1. Country Vacation,

A Division of Country Club India Ltd.

86, B/2 1^st Floor / 4^th Floor, Gajraj Chamber,

Park Circus Connector, Topsia Road, Kolkata-46.

2. Manager / Authorized Person representing

Country Vacation (CV),

A Division of Country Club India Ltd.

86, B/2 1^st Floor / 4^th Floor, Gajraj Chamber,

Park Circus Connector, Topsia Road,  Kolkata-46     ….….…...  Opposit Parties

Order No.   17    Dated  29/07/2016.

       The case of the complainants in short is that on 3rd and 4^th May 2012 complainants received a telephone call from o.ps. that they had won a prize in lucky draw and requested them to collect the gift and cash voucher. Accordingly complainants attended at the presentation of o.ps. on 4.5.12 at City Centre 1, Suit 303, Block C, Salt Lake, Kolkata. O.ps. made various lucrative benefits and insisted the complainants to take membership with Country Vacation by paying Rs.50,000/- on the spot. O.ps. did not allow them any time to go through the agreement. Complainants had to pay Rs.50,000/- by debit card and signed the contract. Complainants paid the amount being assured of their genuineness and credibility and for the lucrative offer from them. They allotted contract no. DT127#0762 dt.4.3.12. On the very next day when complainants read the contract documents they found that it did not contain major benefits which had been committed by the representative of o.ps. during presentation. The representative of o.ps. committed that they would sell membership or any unused vacation as per request of complainants within two months time from requested date, but it was reflected in the contract document. O.ps. also assured the complainants about the membership option like red point / blue point. But in the contract document the status of complainants was blue point which means holiday booking would be given as per availability. O.ps. also committed about availability of doctors, 4/5 star rated accommodation, insurance coverage, holiday package in foreign country for 6 nights 7 days  but in the contract neither of this was reflected. Moreover, the contract was one sided in favour of o.p. company. They did not ask the complainants any identity or address proof prior to the signing of contract. It was affirmed during the presentation that some countries of south-east Asia would be in the purview of their membership and nominal tariff would be required for accommodation and free transport for to and fro journey between airport and hotel would be provided. Accordingly on 9.2.13 complainants sent an e-mail to reservation wing of o.ps. requesting for booking at Kualampur and  Malaysia in two spells from 10.5.13 to 12.5.13 and 20.5.13 to 21.5.13 and for providing free transport between airport and hotel. In reply o.ps. informed them that for Malaysia they have a tie up for accommodation but full hotel charges had to be borne by complainants. Complainants became frustrated for the misrepresentation made by o.ps. On 20.3.13 complainants sent a letter requesting them to refund the deposited amount on cancellation of their membership. Complainants sent a reminder on 16.12.13. In reply o.ps. denied the receipt of the letter dt.20.3.13. However, complainants sent again copy of the said letter to them on 16.12.13 and in reply dt.7.1.14 o.ps. opined their refusal to refund of amount categorically in reference to contract provision. Being cheated by o.ps. the complainants finding no other alternative filed this application praying for refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest along with compensation and cost.

            O.ps. appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that complainant duly signed the said contract with their consent at the office of o.ps. where complainants were invited. Being impressed by the venues and resorts and after being completely satisfied with the norms, rules, terms and conditions of the said company, the complainants willfully and without any coercion or undue influence signed the Country Vacations International Holiday Club Membership Purchase Agreement with the said company on 4.5.12 for a total purchase price of Rs.50,000/- which complainants paid. Pursuant to the receipt of membership fee which is non refundable o.ps. issued a membership card and sent it to the given address of complainants which was duly received by complainants. O.ps. did not force the complainants to pay Rs.50,000/- and to sign on the blank papers. Complainants willfully and without any coercion or undue influence gave their debit card and a cheque for the said membership fee. The agreement was made on 4.5.14 not on 4.3.14. All the allegations made by complainants are false, fabricated and the allegations made by complainants are denied by o.ps. O.ps. have a very good reputation in providing warm and sound hospitality and vacations to its members. They are not squeezing more money from complainants. O.ps. are not liable to refund Rs.50,000/- along with interest, compensation and cost. So, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted that complainants duly signed the Country Vacations International Holiday Club Membership Purchase Agreement with the said company on 4.5.14 for a total purchase price of Rs.50,000/-. In the agreement the benefits were not mentioned which were promised at the time of representation by o.ps. When complainants opted for holiday package in Malaysia and Kualalampur o.ps. informed the complainants that the hotel charges had to be borne by complainants. O.ps. assured them that they would provide to and fro journey between airport and hotel. But when complainants opted for the same they were silent. Being a member which facilities would be given by o.ps. that was not clear in the agreement. Moreover, o.ps. failed to provide any service to complainants which was promised by them. Moreover, the representation by o.ps. does not match with the terms and conditions of the contract.

            In view of the findings above and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. being service providers to the consumer / complainant and as such, complainants are entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to the complainants towards the deposited amount and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five 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.