Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/340/2018

Dharam Paul Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Forb Club International - Opp.Party(s)

Gurtej Pratap Singh Sandhu Adv.

27 Nov 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	340 of 2018
Date of Institution	22.11.2018
Date of Decision	27.11.2018

 

Dharam Paul Garg son of Late Sh. Tara Chand R/o House No.362/1A, Sector-44-A, Chandigarh.

                   ....Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Forb Club International, SCO-17, Airport Road, Above Indian Bank, Near JLPL, Sector-82, Mohali through its Director.
2. Mr. Karan Walia, Director, M/s Forb Club International, SCO-17, Airport Road, Above Indian Bank, Near JLPL, Sector-82, Mohali through its Director.

                                ....Respondents/Opposite Parties 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   SMT. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER.

SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Gurtej Pratap Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.

                                                   

                  

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.9.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant/complainant.

2.    The facts in brief, are that, the complainant was being allured by the false promises & assurances made by the representative of Opposite Parties, became Member of Opposite Party Company under Forb Club Leisureship Plan (FCLP)   (Annexure C-1). It was stated that under the said plan, the duration of membership was of 5 years and it included eight nights-stay every year in a five star hotel, world over, at a cost of Rs.3,15,000/- (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that the complainant paid an advance payment towards the said plan, but when the complainant tried to avail the promised services, he realized that the scheme is not genuine, rather a Collective Investment Scheme illegally run by Opposite Parties without approval from RBI and SEBI. It was further stated that the complainant sent e-mail (Annexure C-3) to Opposite Parties seeking cancellation of membership and asked refund of the amount, whereupon the Opposite Parties visited the complainant and offered him “Travel Kitty” Plan (Forb Travel Kitty or FTK) of three years duration, which included Europe Tour including hotels & internal travel arrangement, one fully paid Asian tour with stay in a Five Star Hotel for four nights including airfare etc. and moreover, an assurance of Europe Tour without any further payment was also offered.  It was further stated that the complainant accepted that offer and as such, he asked the Opposite Parties to book Italy and France Tour from 1.7.2017 to 9.7.2017, which was replied in affirmative, but the representative of the Opposite Parties did not turn up to collect the balance instalment despite complainant’s asking time & again. 
3. It was further stated that after reaching Canada, only air tickets from Paris to Venice and Milan to Paris and travel insurance were dispatched by the Opposite Parties, but no hotel bookings and other arrangements were made by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as on 20.06.2017, they assured to send package on 21.06.2017, but only hotel vouchers were sent.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
4.      The Opposite Parties filed joint reply and stated that the complainant has not paid the total agreed consideration of Rs.2,30,000/-, as per the terms and conditions of the membership and he is still under liability and is a defaulter of Rs.1,19,750/- of the agreed amount of membership (Annexure R-1 & R-2).  It was further stated that the ‘Travel Kitty Plan’ includes Europe tour including hotels and other arrangements was never offered to the complainant.  It was further stated that in fact the Forb Travel Kitty Plan – Tenure 4 years, includes One Europe Tour 6N/7D, Airfare, stay in 3-4 star hotels, city tour, visa, pick & drop, One India Holiday - 6N/5D only stay in 3-4 star hotels, One Asia Holiday - 6N/5D only stay in 3-4 star hotels, one Worldwide Holiday only stay in 3-4 star hotels.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties did not assure the complainant to avail Europe Tour without further payment of Rs.1.45 lacs. It was further stated that the complainant without making further payment as per terms & conditions of the package, want all the facilities to be provided to him, which is not possible as per the scheme, therefore, the complainant was given facilities in accordance of payment made by him.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were not expected to deliver confirmed tour bookings and travel insurance without making of due installments, but, keeping in view the old age of the complainant and his wife, the Opposite Parties decided to provide/arrange facility of air-travel, insurance and stay in hotel to the complainant even without depositing of due installment and the said facilities were above the amount so deposited by the complainant (Annexures R-3 to R-12). Pleading no deficiency in service on their part and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties.
6. The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 
8.     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10.  After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the complainant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. From the records, we observed that the appellant has not paid the total agreed consideration of Rs.2,30,000/-, as per the terms and conditions of the Membership and he is still under liability and defaulter of Rs.1,19,750/- of the agreed amount of Membership (Annexures R-1 & R-2). The respondents has stated that the Forb Travel kitty Plan – Tenure 4 years includes one Europe tour 6N/7D, Airfare, stay in 3-4 star hotels, city tour, visa, pick & drop, one India holiday 6N/5D only stay in 3-4 star hotels, one Asia holiday 6N/5D only stay in 3-4 star hotels, one Worldwide holiday only stay in 3-4 star hotels. It is further observed that the respondents never assured the appellant to avail Europe tour without further payment of Rs.1.45 lacs. It appears that the appellant without making further payment as per the terms & conditions of the package, wants all the facilities to be provided to him, which is not possible as per the scheme and he was therefore, given the facilities proportionately of payment made by him. In fact, it is observed that the respondents decided to provide/arrange facility of air travel, insurance and stay in hotel to the appellant even without depositing of due instalment which were over and above the amount deposited by the appellant.
12. From the records, we have also observed that the air tickets from Paris to Venice and Milan to Paris and travel insurance were provided by the respondents, but the appellant has claimed for hotel bookings and other arrangements were made by the respondents with delay. The appellant has miserably failed to specify and place on record any such document whereby he has ever been promised certain services and which were not provided to him, even though the appellant did not make the full payment. Keeping in view of the above facts, the Forum was correct in dismissing the complaint, on account of the complaint being without any merit. We are also of the considered opinion that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the complainant.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the
    point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

27.11.2018

                                                                                       Sd/- 

                                                                           [PADMA PANDEY]

                                                                          PRESIDING MEMBER

     

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                            [RAJESH K. ARYA]

                                                                               MEMBER                                                          

 

GP

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.340 of 2018)

(Dharam Paul Garg Vs. Forb Club International & Ors.)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Gurtej Pratap Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.

 

Dated the 27^th day of November, 2018

 

ORDER

 

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost.

 

 

      

              Sd/-                                    Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER	(RAJESH K. ARYA)                   MEMBER

 

GP