Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/238/2021

Priyanka Kamboj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nikhil Gupta, MD, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holiday Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ankush Kamboj

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/238/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	05/04/2023

 

Priyanka Kamboj aged 27 years D/o Kirpal singh resident of house No.303B, Sector 51A, Chandigarh.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Nikhil Gupta,  Managing Director,  the Boutique Club, Tarangan Holiday, Pvt. Ltd. Reg. office #225A-B, 2^nd floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gurgaon 122001.
2. Rakesh Kalra, Managing Director, the Boutique Club, Tarangan Holiday Pvt. Ltd. Reg. office #225A-B, 2^nd floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gugaon 122001.
3. Smita Roy Chawdhary, Assistant Manager of Customer Care Department, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holiday Pvt. Ltd. Reg. office #225A-B, 2^nd floor, Vipul Agora, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 28, Gugaon 122001.
4. Pinky Bora, Venue Manager, The Boutique Club Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd.  Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
5. Girish Ranjan, Senior Branch Manager, The Boutique club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Ltd. Wave mall, City emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Ankush Kamboj counsel for complainant. Sh. Rajat Chaudhary vice counsel for Sh. Amit Chaudhary, counsel for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant on the allurement and assurance of OPs No. 4 and 5 took the membership of OPs after paying Rs.49500/- in single installment, which was valid for three years. It is alleged that the complainant through various emails dated 10.11.2020, 15.2.2021, 8.3.2021 requested the OPs for booking on different occasions but the bookings on the different locations were refused by the OPs by giving different excuses each time.  The complainant sent legal notice also but the same returned back with insufficient address however the legal notices sent through whatsapp message was seen by Ops No. 3,4 and 5 but nothing was done by the OPs.  Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Parties in their joint reply stated that the complainant has already availed the services of OPs by staying in Shogi and he concealed this fact. It is averred that the complainant was entitled to the destination as per terms and agreements. The OPs have never denied any request of the complainant but only requested to follow signed agreement. It is alleged that till date the complainant has not deposited the annual maintenance charges amounting to Rs.4999/-. The complainant signed the agreement after going through all the clauses and conditions. It  is averred that as per terms and conditions duly signed by the complainant it has been clearly specified that the demand of booking should be given as per availability and eligibility. The complainant was entitled for holidays as per the season.  Denying all other allegations made in the complaint as prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. No rejoinder was filed  by the complainant.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The sole grouse of the complainant is that she invested Rs.49500/- for the membership of OPs which  was valid for three years but on three different occasions i.e. 10.11.2020,15.2.2021 and 8.3.2021  the OPs refused booking for different reasons. Hence, the present complaint has been filed.
7.  The OPs have taken the stand that it was the choice of the complainant to avail the services of the OPs. The complainant did not deposit the annual maintenance charges amounting to Rs.4999/- and also she availed holidays once at Shogi which fact has not been disclosed in the complaint, hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.
8. After going through the document on record it is abundantly clear from Annexure-2  that the complainant invested an amount of Rs.49500/- on 13.2.2020 for availing services of OPs. As per Annexure-3, the OPs brought into the notice of the complainant that due to crucial time of pandemic they have terminated maintenance waiver for one year only and requested the complainant to pay Rs.4999/- as maintenance charges. A perusal of Anenxure-4 dated 13.2.2020 which a confirmation receipt of Rs.49500/- towards the membership  reveals that there is specific mention that there is balance of Rs.0.00/. Notably there is mention over this document that as a three year white season boutique club  member  you are required to pay Rs.4999/-  as mandatory annual subscription fee yearly irrespective of usage (However in your deal it’s waived off completely).
9. It is crystal clear from Annexure-3 and 4  that the OPs  are taking dual stand. On the one hand they are waiving off the maintenance charges completely and  on the other hand they are demanding annual maintenance charges from the complainant for the reasons best know to them. Undoubtedly, it is admitted by the complainant in its written arguments  that he availed stay on Shogi  in the beginning and alleged that thereafter OPs refused booking of  hotels for the complainant for one reason or the other. Hence, the act of the  OPs for changing  the terms and conditions  of the agreement on their own unilaterally and arbitrarily by demanding annual maintenance charges, non-providing of proper service proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  Hence the OPs cannot forfeit the entire amount deposited by the complainant.
10. So far as the prayer of the complainant  for refund of entire membership fee is concerned  the same cannot be allowed as the complainant had enjoyed one vacation/stay in the property of the OPs. The complainant is only entitled for lumpsum two third  of the deposited amount.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to Refund Rs.33000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing the present complaint Till realization
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
mp