Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/515/2016

Bhupinder Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Country Club (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Singla

16 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/515/2016
Date of Institution	:	14/07/2016
Date of Decision	:	16/03/2018

 

Bhupinder Gupta aged 43 years s/o Sh. Ram Chader Gupta # 301, Ward No.2, Pura Mohalla, Bassi Pathana, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Country Club (India) Ltd. (CCIL) Country Vacations, SCO 44-45, Above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory.

2.     The Country Club (India) Ltd., (CCIL) Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500063 through its Authorised Signatory.

3.     Y. Rajeev Reddy c/o Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp. Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500063

……Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sanjeev Singla, Counsel for complainant
	:	None for OPs.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The brief facts, as contained in the consumer complaint are, the complainant vide purchase agreement dated 9.10.2014 after payment of Rs.76,000/- on 10.10.2014 was allotted membership by the OPs providing best accommodation with all luxurious facilities to their members/consumer who wants to enjoy the vacations throughout the country.  It is the case, in the month of October 2014, after purchasing membership, the complainant intended to visit Goa in December 2014 and he had informed the OPs regarding the tour plan, but, the OPs started making lame excuses and did not provide any accommodation which shows act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  In January 2015, similar requests were made, but, again the OPs could not provide the accommodation. However, in June 2015, on the instructions of the complainant, OPs provided one of the poorest accommodation at Kodaikanal. The rooms were wet and stinky regarding which the complainant also complained to the staff of the OPs, but, he was not heard.  As such, the OPs employed unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.  It is further the case, OPs were demanding Rs.7,500/- from the complainant as AMC charges.  On these averments, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.25,000/- has been prayed for.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed reply.  It is their case, parties are governed by the agreement entered into inter se them on 9.10.2014.  It is also their case, clause 9 of the agreement i.e. with regard to making of payment and annual maintenance charges of Rs.7,500/- towards the vacation by the first party was not made and as per clause 13 of the agreement, online booking will be confirmed subject to availability of the room.  Rest of the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice were denied.
3.         The complainant by way of rejoinder reiterated his allegations as contained in the consumer complaint.  It is his case, OPs were in the habit of changing the conditions of the agreement and as per Annexure R-4, they had also charged restaurant and utility charges from the complainant when he visited Kodaikanal and the same is in deviation of the agreement.
4.         The parties produced affidavits and counter affidavits in their evidence.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
6.         The conclusions which could be drawn from the record are, the execution of the agreement, which is the base of the consumer complaint, is not in dispute before us. It shows various insertions of clauses.  True it is, there is a clause No.9 with regard to the payment of annual maintenance charges of Rs.7,500/- and confirmation of online booking which was not done by the complainant. The parties cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thus, with regard to the same, there is no force in the claim preferred by the complainant.
7.         Per record, in the rejoinder it was reiterated that the OPs were in the habit of changing the conditions of the agreement unilaterally and to that effect reference to Annexure R-4 was made vide which utility and restaurant charges were recovered from the complainant which was not so provided in the agreement. 
8.         The complainant has sworn in his affidavit that on booking the tour in June 2015 for Kodaikanal, the OPs provided poorest accommodation, rooms of which were wet and stinky, regarding which the complainant also complained to the staff of OPs, but, he was not heard.  Due to the said poorest accommodation, the complainant and his family could not enjoy their tour in a proper manner and could not sleep in the night and due to wet and stinky rooms and they were forced to leave the resort in 2 days.  His claim finds corroboration from the recitals of Annexure R-4 which reflects the check in date as 23.6.2015 and check out on 26.6.2015.  This shows, the complainant and his family could not stay in the resort for more than two days. There seems to be substance in this part of the allegation put forth in the complaint.  It is true, there is counter affidavit of one of the functionaries of the OPs, but, it was rebutted by way of affidavit of the complainant.  If proper services were provided by the OPs, there was no occasion for the complainant to make a complaint and swear in an affidavit. Hence, the OPs are proved to be deficient in providing proper services and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the harassment undergone by him and his family. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
2. To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         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 amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/03/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President