South II


Mr. Satish Chawla - Complainant(s)


Mountain Club Resorts India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2023


Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Complaint Case No. CC/187/2017
( Date of Filing : 31 May 2017 )
1. Mr. Satish Chawla
12/24, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
1. Mountain Club Resorts India Pvt. Ltd.
Unit No.-506,, 5th Floor, Goverdhan Building 53-54, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
  Monika Aggarwal Srivastava PRESIDENT
  Dr. Rajender Dhar MEMBER
  Ritu Garodia MEMBER
Dated : 20 Oct 2023
Final Order / Judgement



UdyogSadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016


         Case No.187/2017



R/O 12/24 FF,


NEW DELHI - 110008



R/O 12/24 FF,












53, 54, NEHRU PLACE,



Date of Institution-31.05.2017

Date of Order- 20.10.2023




  1. The complaint pertains to deficiency on the part of OP in providing services under Membership Agreement.


  1. Brief factsas stated in complaint are that the complainant purchased a membership bearing No- NAMC-4125 valid forten years from Mountain Club Resorts. He paida consideration of Rs.80,000on 11.07.2016 for this membership, He was assured of the following services:-
  1. Providing free occupancy of accommodation for 10 years in India and outside with RCI tie-ups.
  2. Utilising all resorts in all season.
  3. Promises of getting 5 star accommodation.
  4. Providing full list of properties to be utilised.
  5. Full cooperation by staff in booking the accommodation.


  1. On 06.09.2016, the complainant sent a mail requesting for accommodation in Kerala for December end. The request was made 4 months before the desired date. He was informed that the said dates are blackout dates and no bookings are possible in that period though there was no mention of blackout dates in the Agreement. The complainant booked through another travel company.


  1. In January 2017, the complainant again requested for bookings for accommodation in Singapore for the month of March, 2017. He was informed to telephonically contact one Ms. Bandana Das for RCI related booking. The said Ms. Das on being contacted asked the complainant to send his query by mail.  He sent an email to her on 28.01.2017 and 08.02.2017. He was informed that mail ID provided by Ms. Bandana Das did not exist. The complainant triedto contact her telephonically again and again. He finally received an email dated 21.02.2017, in which a price of Rs.40,000/- was quoted for reservations. The complainant alleges that other accommodations in Singapore were easily available for the same price and there was no benefit of membership.


  1. The complainant asked for bifurcation of chargeslevied by RCI. He was informed about Rs.23,000/- being exchange fees.The Agreement provides for exchange fee in the range of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.23,000/-. The complainant received no answer to his query regarding the highest slab charged from him in the exchange fees.


  1. The complainant underlines that no services has been provided by OP, since, he received membership.The complainant prays for refund of Rs.80,000/- with 18% interest per annum, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.


  1. OP in its reply has stated that the complaint is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is also not maintainable as the Agreement contains arbitration clause.


  1. OP submits that the complainant availed a membership on 11.07.2016 for 10 years for one Studio apartment(2 adults and 2 kids) for taking holidays/vacations in Home Properties as well as in tie-up properties. The complainant paid Rs.80,000/-. The complainant was also given an option of international holiday vacation through RCI.


  1. OP submitted that it has no tie-up in Kerala except for Alleppey. The complainant vide email dated 06.09.2016 requested for booking a holiday in Kerala from 26.12.2016 to 05.01.2017 which was unavailable. OP informed the complainant that it has only one tie-up with property in Alleppey and the desired dates were unavailable on account of Christmas and New Year. OP further states that due to such heavy booking OP has marked these dates as blackout dates.


  1. The complainant vide email dated 27.01.2017 and 28.01.2017 enquired about the availability of accommodation in Singapore from 11.03.2016 to 16.03.2017 for 3-4 adults. OP vide email dated 21.02.2017 confirmed the availability for 3 adults in M Hotel, Singapore, on the desired date for Rs.40,000/-. OP explains that the complainant was entitled to one Studio Apartment i.e. for 2 adults and 2 kids while he requested accommodation for 3 adults. OP submits that the complainant did not accede to his own request for reservation in Singapore. The complainant was explained about the bifurcation of charges of the booking made in Singapore through RCI.


  1. OP submitted that Membership Agreement does not provide for refund as there was no formal communication by the complainant within the stipulated time as per the exit clause. The said clause provides refund within 7 days after signing the Agreement for cancellation.


  1. The complainant in his replication stated that there was no service provided by the company.


  1. The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
  1. Copy of Agreement is exhibited as Ex.CW 1.
  2. Copies of emails are exhibited as Ex.CW 2 to Ex.CW1/4.
  3. Copy of email and reply are exhibited as Ex.CW1/5.a and Ex.CW1/5b.


  1. OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
  1. Copy of the Board of Resolution is exhibited as EX-RW-1/1.
  2. Set of membership along with membership certificate are exhibited as Ex-RW-1/2.


  1. This Commission has considered the material and documents on record. It is admitted by both the parties that complainant purchased a membership with OP for 10 years vide Agreement dated 11.07.2016 for Rs.80,000/-.


  1. Complainant vide email dated 06.09.2016 at 02:49pm requested the OP for reservations in Kerala from December 24-30th. OP on the same day informed vide email at 03:04pm that they have only one property at Alleppey which cannot be made available between 24th December and 5th January. The complainant on the same day sent an email at 03:20pm that sites like ClearTrip and TripAdvisor are showing availability of accommodation. OP informed vide email at 04:27pm that the earlier mentioned dates are blackouts date. The complainant vide email at 06:33pm requested booking from December 24-30th in any place in India. OP replied vide email at 06:35pm that these dates come under blackouts dates and they are not providing any bookings to their members in this period in any location of India. OP has filed a list of 30 properties as tie-up resorts.


  1. From the above trail mail, it can be seen that complainant was open to bookings in any property of OP in India on dates between 24th to 30th December. OP has blithelely stated that the period between 24th December to 5th January were blackouts dates due to heavy rush and no booking can be made during this period. No mention of these blackouts date have been mentioned in the Agreement. It shows the intention of OP not to provide accommodation when it is convenient for people to travel. i.e. during holiday season.


  1. Thereafter, the complainant vide email dated 27.01.2017 at 11:25am requested OP to book accommodation in Hotel Ramada, Singapore, under RCI from 11.03.2016 to 16.03.2017.OP vide email at 02:29pm informed complainant to contact Ms. Bandana Das on 011-41811134 for RCI related booking. Complainant vide email dated 28.01.2017 at 11:16am informed OP that he has emailed his query to Ms. Bandana Das. The complainant had also requested for an extra bed in case of three people and 2 rooms in case of 4 people for 5 nights in Singapore. The complainant vide email at 12:12pm on the same date informed the OP that email provided by Ms. Bandana Das does not exist. OP vide email at 01:48pm requested the complainant to contact Ms. Bandana Das on the same phone number. Complainant vide email dated 01.02.2017 requested OP for a response. OP in its reply asked the complainant to again to contact Ms. Bandana Das on the same phone number.


  1. On 21.02.2017, the complainant received an email from OP stating that reservations have been made at Studio M Hotel Singapore at a cost of Rs.40,000/- for 3 adults with an extra bed.Thecomplainant requested a break-down  of Rs.40,000/- in email dated 21.02.2017 and 24.02.2017. On 25.2.2017, the complainant received a response, indicating that Rs. 23,000 of the total amount was designated as exchange fees, with the remaining portion allocated for the extra bed. In response to this, on the same day, the complainant sought clarification regarding the basis for the exchange fees, as the agreement mentioned a range of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 23,000 for international travel. Furthermore, the complainant requested information about the daily tariff for the extra bed. In response, OP stated that someone named Shehbaz had communicated the booking details and associated costs to the complainant. In an email also sent on the same day, the complainant expressed dissatisfaction, pointing out that Shehbaz had not clarified the basis for the highest exchange fee charged and had not mentioned the daily rate for the extra bed.OP's subsequent reply reiterated that the cost for the bonus night was higher, and the complainant would be responsible for the extra bed charge. In response, the complainant sent another email to OP, expressing dissatisfaction with the explanation provided as vague and incomplete.


  1. From the above trail mail, it is seen that the OP was asking for Rs.40,000/- for making reservations in Singapore. The complainant has asked for the details/bifurcation of the amount to be paid to OP.  In their emails, OP has given a vague reply that bonus night is higher, extra bed is being charged and Rs.23,000/- is towards exchange fees. However, OP has not mentioned clearly the different heads under which Rs.40,000/- was being charged. OP has not answered the specific query of the complainant as to why he was being charged the exchange fee in the higher exchange slab.


  1. It appears that OP after receiving the money for providing accommodation from member shirks from performing his part of the Agreement and does not provide accommodation when it is most convenient for people to travel even when these members are opting for reservation anywhere in India. OP also does not provide explanation/bifurcation for the amounts charged from members on international accommodation. Moreover, the consumers are kept in dark about the black-out dates in holiday season.


  1. The OP has its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It has been  well-settled that a consumer complaint is maintainable even if there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement.


  1. Hence we find OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to refund:
  1. OP is directed to pay Rs.80,000/- with interest @9% from the date of Complaint till its realization.
  2. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/-as compensation for the mental agony and the discomfort caused due to deficiency in service.
  3. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.


  1. File be consigned to record room.


[ Monika Aggarwal Srivastava]
[ Dr. Rajender Dhar]
[ Ritu Garodia]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.