Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/680/2014

Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohindra Holiday and Resort - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.k. Brinda

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/680/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	14/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Charanjit Singh S/o Sh. Sunder Singh, R/o H.No.114, Dashmesh Colony Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

 

Complainant

Versus

 

[1]  Mohindra Holidays and Resort India Limited, Mahindra Tower, 2^nd Floor, 17/18, Patullous Road, Chennai.

 

[2]  Mohindra Holidays and Resort India Ltd., having B.O. SCO No.188-189, 2^nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, now shifted to No. 504, A-Block, 5^th Floor, Elenta Mall, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

 Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                    

Present:      Complainant in person, along with Sh. H.K. Brinda, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. J.S. Bhatia, Counsel for OPs.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, allured by the offer of 32” LCD, two domestic tour of 8 days, one international tour of one week, 10 food voucher of Rs.500/- each, 10 resort credit voucher of Rs.500/- valid up to 31.5.2012, given by one Garish Makkar, Representative of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant obtained the Membership of Opposite Parties, under ‘White Studio’ category, on 26.3.2008, for Rs.1,99,850, by paying Rs.29,978/- as down payment, while the remaining amount was to be paid in monthly installments. The Complainant paid the remaining amount up to April, 2009. It has been alleged that the service, as per terms of the Opposite Parties, was to be availed online. The Complainant applied for Dharamshala holidays and thereafter, Goa Holidays, but the same were not confirmed by the Opposite Parties, despite repeated requests and reminders. Resultantly, the food and resort vouchers issued by the Opposite Parties were not used and stand lapsed due to non-confirmation of holidays by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant, thereafter, applied for international tour to USA in 2011, but again when the booking was not confirmed, as assured by the Opposite Parties at the time of obtaining their Membership, the Complainant got his tour arranged from M/s Shaan World Travels, from 04.07.2011 to 08.07.2011. However, to the utter shock of the Complainant, without providing any service/facilities, as promised (except giving a LCD of 32”), the Opposite Parties further raised a demand of Rs.56,399/- with regard to ASF charges, service tax and pay payment which according to him is totally uncalled for and tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, seeking various reliefs.

 

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 factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that as per record, the Complainant has only paid a total amount of Rs.1,99,850/- towards the White Studio Membership. Upon subscription/ purchase of membership, the Complainant was dispatched Sony Bravia LCD on 21.5.2008. Food Vouchers were dispatched on 14.12.2011 (Annexure R-4 Colly). With regard to 5 Club Mahindra Night Holiday and 3 Club Mahindra Night Holiday, it has been asserted that the same could be availed by the Complainant, subject to the eligibility and availability with the resort. With regard to one week holiday through RCI, it has been submitted that RCI Holiday is subject to availability of RCI destination and is a matter purely between the Member and RCI for which answering Opposite Parties are not liable in any manner. It has been pleaded that there is no reservation request for Goa & USA as alleged by the Complainant. With regard to Dharamshala, it is submitted that OP Company had booked holiday for the Complainant at Kangra Valley, Dharamshala from 10.12.2012 to 13.12.2012 (Annexure R-5). It has been further pleaded that Annual Subscription Fee (ASF) is payable annually, irrespective of holiday utilization. The Complainant has not paid the ASF of Rs.68,968/-, which covers the actual costs of maintaining, upgrading, refurbishing and renovating the resorts, including cost of maintaining other facilities towards servicing the membership. It has been submitted that as per Clause 6 of the Membership rule, the Complainant is not entitled for full refund in the event of cancellation of membership after rescission period. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

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

 

5.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.  

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that he opted the membership of Opposite Parties under ‘White Studio’ category on 26.3.2008 for Rs.1,99,850/- by paying Rs.29,978/- as down payment, while the remaining amount was paid in installments upto April, 2009. The allegations of the Complainant are that the Opposite Parties did not provide services as per their terms. The requests of the Complainant for a trip to Dharamshala and thereafter, for Goa and later on for USA, were not confirmed by the Opposite Parties, despite repeated requests and reminders. The food and resort vouchers issued by the Opposite Parties have not been used, inspite of being issued once again due to expiry of the previously issued ones. As per the case of the Complainant, he received only LCD of 32” from the side of the Opposite Parties. The main grouse of the Complainant is that as he has not availed any service of the Opposite Parties, then demand of Rs.56,399/- with regard to ASF charges is unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that there is no record of request of Goa and international trip to USA by the Complainant. It has been contended that the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,99,850/- in total and nothing has been paid towards Annual Subscription Fee (ASF), which amounts to Rs.68,968/-. Further, it has been contended by the Opposite Parties that they booked holiday for the Complainant at Kangra Valley, Dharamshala from 10.12.2012 to 13.12.2012 as per Annexure R-5 (copy of holiday utilization statement). As the Complainant has already taken the services of the Opposite Parties, as stated above, therefore, admission fee is non-refundable. As per the Opposite Parties, in the event of cancellation after the rescission period of 10 days, admission fees consisting of 60% of the total membership fees is non-refundable, only entitlement fees which forms 40% of the total membership fees is refundable which is subject to other applicable deductions. It has been further stated that after calculations, the Opposite Parties have found an amount of Rs.13,527/- as recoverable amount from the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties, as pending amount is more than the refundable amount, the Complainant is not entitled to any refund as per the contract signed by him.     

 

9.      So far as the authenticity of Annexure R-5  ‘Holiday Usage Statement’ is concerned, the same cannot be believed, as the Opposite Parties have not produced any document, which could show that the Complainant ever requested on-line or otherwise for availing holidays at Kangra Valley, Dharamhala from 10.12.2012 to 13.12.2012 as argued by them. Therefore, the plea of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant requested for the Dharamshala holidays cannot be accepted. As the Complainant did not avail any service of the Opposite Parties, therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the refund as per terms & conditions of the Membership Rules (Annexure R-1). 

 

10.      Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties has contended that in the event of cancellation after rescission period of 10 days, admission fees consisting of 60% of the total membership fee is non-refundable. Hence, in the present case, the Complainant is entitled for remaining 40% of the total membership fees in case if any service regarding holidays is not availed. Therefore, inspite of not giving such service the act of the Opposite Parties in not making their stand clear with regard to the refundable amount goes against them and the same proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. We feel that the amount, which was refundable, should have been offered to the Complainant, promptly. We can also gauge the predicament of a family, who even after paying a huge amount of Rs.1,99,850/-, could not avail the services of the Opposite Parties in respect of the holidays trip, as promised by the Opposite Parties at the time of taking the Membership in question.

 

11.      In view of aforesaid position, evidently the complainant is entitled to 40% refund as admitted by the Opposite Parties in Para No.7 of their written statement at page no.9. Non-refund of the amount, in our opinion, also tantamounts to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Here we are fortified by the pronouncement of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, in F.A. No. 55 of 2014 titled as “Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited & Anr. Versus Dr. Sushil Paul Singh”, decided on 22.04.2014, wherein under the similar circumstances, the Respondent/ Complainant was held entitled to only 40% of the refundable amount out of the total amount deposited by him.  

 

12.      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. 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 refund Rs.79,941/-, being the 40% of the membership fee, to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

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

Announced

10^th April,2015                                         

Sd/- 

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER