Date of Filing : 11/08/2015
Order No. 16 dt. 29/01/2018
Fact of the case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant being allured and convinced by the proposal in the advertisement of M/s Country Club(India) Ltd.,(o.p-1) booked for membership of the company with an amount of Rs.17,000/-and accepted the membership for 10 years with further payment of Rs.93,000/- and Rs.25,000/- through Invoice No.71316 F-3067 dated 01/07/2013 and Invoice No.71316 F-3068 dated 01/07/2013 respectively. O.p-1 acknowledged the payment by issuing Membership Certificate No.CCKK 3V10LW64997 dated 07/12/2013. In 2013 complainant desired to go USA and in 2014 complainant intended to go to Mexico and accordingly requested the o.p. to book resort in the said countries for his travelling. But o.p-1 had made no response and consequently complainant had to face monetary loss in cancellation of the two tours. For this deficiency in service and mental harassment complainant asked the o.p. for refund of membership expenditure. But op-1 did not respond to the call of the complainant. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint praying direction upon the o.ps. to refund Rs.1,35,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
O.ps contested the case by submitting w/v. In the w/v, o.ps. denied all allegations made against them. Ld. Lawyer of the o.ps. argued that the case of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or in facts and as such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed in limini with exemplary cost upon the complainant. Ld lawyer of the op-1 has argued that there is a clear provision in the agreement that the second party must understand that the vacations charges are non-refundable under any circumstances and that the vacation fee is not a deposit’. And as such being the party to the agreement the complainant is bound by his own undertaking as well as the terms of the agreement duly signed by him and the complainant by violating the same cannot approach to the Ld. Forum with a prayer for refund of the vacation fee and as such the intention of the complainant is unfair and ill motive in nature. Ld lawyer has submitted that AMC is payable online and is payable irrespective of uses of the vacations/facilities/amenities. The same shall be applicable from the date of the agreement and is payable yearly. The AMC needs to be paid on time. Failure to clear dues towards second party shall be at default and vacations cannot be utilized until all dues are cleared.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether there was any deficiency in service/utp on the part of the o.p.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any 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.
Considering the submission of the respective parties and for the series of cases filed against the o.p. it is found that the same allegations have been leveled against the o.ps that they camouflaged the parties by offering different places with allurement of providing accommodation without payment of any charges . O.p-1 has also used to force the parties to sign the agreement by creating such an atmosphere that if the membership is not accepted immediately in that event all the offers to be provided by the o.p. cannot be availed of by the parties. O.p. allured the complainants that they would enjoy the hassle free benefits offered in the agreement. It is also evident from the submission of the respective parties that complainant booked for membership of the company with an amount of Rs.17,000/-and accepted the membership for 10 years with further payment of Rs.1,18,000/-. O.p-1 acknowledged the payment by issuing Membership Certificate No.CCKK 3V10LW64997 dated 07/12/2013. In 2013 complainant desired to go USA and in 2014 she intended to go to Mexico and accordingly requested the o.p. to book resort in the said countries for his traveling. But o.p-1 had made no response and consequently complainant had to face monetary loss in cancellation of the two tours. For the deficiency in service and mental harassment complainant asked the o.p. for refund of membership expenditure. But op-1 did not respond to the call of the complainant.
With the above points in view we hold that there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get relief.
Hence, ordered
that the case no.375/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the ops. O.ps are directed, jointly and/or severally, to refund of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only). O.ps are also directed to pay the aforesaid amount 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.
