Date of Filing – 04.11.2016

Date of Hearing – 06.09.2017

            Challenge in this Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Order No.16 dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 318/2014.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the respondents under Section 12 of the Act with certain directions upon the appellant/OP to refund Rs.1,00,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of communication of the order otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from date till its realisation.

          The Respondents herein being Complainants lodged the complaint asserting that on 15.03.2013 they were invited by the opposite party for a presentation at Gajraj Chambers.  The executive of Country Club showed them photographs of various locations and informed the complainants that they can stay for a short period comfortably without any financial implications except for payment of membership fee and AMC every year for 10 years on using the membership card of the club for ten visits as per agreement and AMC of Rs.6,000/- for membership card has to be paid by the complainants.  The complainants alleged that they were promised several facilities and the ambiance in which the discussions were conducted was one with shady lights and loud music.  It was like a casino with several chairs and several discussions were being held simultaneously.  The complainants have also stated that they wanted to be given time to think over the proposal offered but the rosy picture presented to them made them to believe that may be and which will be suitable for an elderly couple like them.  Ultimately, at the instance of the executives of OP club, they made an advance payment of Rs.25,000/- and subsequently paid another amount of Rs.75,000/- and on payment they received their membership card.  While utilising holiday gift voucher, they realise that they have been taken for a ride and they were totally disillusioned and decided not to avail any one of the ten journeys and give up their membership and demand for return of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by them.  For non-payment of the same, the respondents approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including refund of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation and litigation cost etc.

          The Appellant being OP by filing written version disputed the claim of the complainant and has submitted that the complainants has signed the agreement on 15.03.2013 on their own volition and as such the terms and conditions of the agreement is binding upon them for which the complaint should be dismissed.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint on contest with certain directions as indicated above.     To assail the said order, the opposite party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          Mr. Sumeet Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the respondents being educated persons signed the purchase agreement on 15.03.2013 after knowing all the terms and conditions embodied therein.  Ld. Advocate for the appellant has drawn my attention to Convenants of Purchaser (Annexure-III) of the agreement and submitted that the respondents put their signatures in the agreement after understanding all the terms and conditions and now they cannot take the plea that without understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement in a haste manner, they put their signatures in the agreement.  He has further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the endeavour of the Court must always be to interpret the word in which the contract is expressed by the parties.  Therefore, when the agreement clearly spells out that renting or selling of membership can be done through the personal contacts and the appellant club does not engage in rental and resale of membership, the order passed by the Ld. District Forum directing the appellant club to refund the money should be set aside.

          The respondents/complainants, who are senior citizens have submitted that the appellant club has adopted cavalier manner in replying the letters given by them and in doing so the appellant company did not use the letter head of the club and without any signature giving name and designation of the executive which indicates volumes of the organisation and shows the proper perspective of the appellant club.  Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum should be upheld.

          I have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant and the respondents, who appeared in person and scrutinised the materials on record including the impugned judgement.

          Undisputedly, on 15.03.2013 the respondents were invited for a presentation of the appellant organisation at Gajraj Chambers.  The executives of the appellant organisation showed some rosy pictures and impressed the respondents that being old aged person they can stay for a short period comfortably without  any financial implications except for payment of membership fee and AMC  of Rs. 6,000/- per year for  10 years on using such membership cards for  10 visits as per agreement. Accordingly, on that date the respondents made an advance payment of Rs. 25,000/- on the spot and subsequently they have paid the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- and on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- membership card was given to the respondents. The appellant organisation has also provided holiday gift voucher on payment of membership fee of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

          It is alleged by the respondents that while utilising the holiday gift voucher made to them they realised that they were taken for a ride. The respondents being disillusioned and decided not to avail any of the  10 journeys eligible and give up the membership and demanded the return of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The record reveals that on 07.02.2014 the respondents wrote a letter to the Senior Customer Care Manager of the appellant organisation informing that they were virtually coerce into signing the contract on 15.03.2013 for purchase of membership of appellant organisation. In the letter, the respondents have disclosed that they intended to visit to Hyderabad and requested the appellant organisation to do the booking when it was informed that breakfast charges would have to be paid by the respondents and further informed that for five nights and six days journey , respondents have to pay Rs. 4,000/- as registration or administration fee. In such a situation, the respondents have lost their faith upon the appellant company. Subsequently, on 23.02.2014 and  05.03.2014 the respondents by sending letters the respondents claimed refund amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by them. By a letter dated 28.03.2014 ( which does not bear the pad or seal of the appellant club or the signature of the executive who wrote the letter) the appellant organisation informed the respondents that if they wish they can rent, sell or transfer their membership through their personal contract but the appellant organisation does not engage in renting or reselling of the said membership.

          Thereafter, by a letter date 16.04.2014 the respondent once again requested the appellant organisation to refund Rs.1,00,000/- as they were  ‘taken in’ unwittingly by relentless pressure by the executives of  the appellant organisation under loud music and in dim lighting. By a reply dated 23.04.2014, the appellant organisation once again reiterated that membership fee is not refundable under any circumstances and the membership fee is not a deposit .  

          The fact remains that the respondents being senior citizens under pressure on the one hand and with a hope for a hassle free journey on the other hand agreed to be member by payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- but they were disillusioned while they tried to visit Hyderabad through the appellant organisation being member of the same.

          What appears to me surprising is that the letters given by the appellant organisation dated 28.03.2014 and 23.04. 2014 were not written under the seal and signature of any person or organisation. Those two letters addressed to the respondents creates doubt as to genuineness of the appellant organisation which in turn indicates that the appellant organisation has adopted an unfair practice which speaks volumes of the organisation and the proper prospective of the organisation.

          Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard the parties, it appears to me that there are something behind the screen which the appellant organisation does not like to bring in the day light. In such a situation, the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the OP/appellant organisation was deficient in rendering services and adopted unfair trade practice.

          Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

          The order noZ6 dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/318/2014 is hereby affirmed.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit – I for information.