Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/349/2015

Mrs. Neelam Sheoran - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Deepak Aggarwal

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/349/2015
Date of Institution	:	03/06/2015
Date of Decision	:	30/06/2016

 

Neelam Sheoran w/o Col. Narendra Sheoran, resident of House No.2329-A, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

(1)    The Country Club (India) Limited, having Regd. Office at Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500063, through its Director.

 

(2)    Branch Head, Country Vacations, (A division of Country Club (I) Limited, SCO 44-45, above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160015.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR.MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

1.         Mrs. Neelam Sheoran, Complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Country Club (India) Limited & Another, (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that attracted by various offers and commitments made by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant purchased vacations on 24.7.2013 by depositing Rs.70,000/- towards vacation short term accommodation with Blue Floating Week Option (Receipts Annexure C-1 & C-2). However, on receipt of Purchase Agreement for Vacation Membership (Annexure C-4), the Complainant was shocked to note that holiday booking process was online and on first come, first serve basis and there was no specific clause regarding any special benefits to the families of Army Personnel as was initially committed at the time of deposit of amount. On being confronted, Opposite Parties clarified that the condition regarding special benefits to the families of Army Personnel would found mention in the documentation which would be supplied within few days to avail the vacation package. However, when the Opposite Parties sent bunch of documents to be filled, the Complainant did not sign the same as the condition as committed above was missing (Annexure C-6 [colly]). Left with no other alternative, the Complainant sent various e-mails and notices to the Opposite Parties requesting for cancellation of the membership (Annexure C-5 [colly]) and to refund the amount paid by her, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the requests made by the Complainant. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         In their joint written statement, Opposite Parties, while admitting the basic facts of the case, have pleaded that under her Membership the Complainant was eligible for availing 6 nights & 7 days vacation every year for 10 years in Blue Season Plan. It was denied that any commitment was made that Opposite Parties book holidays at very short notice for families of army personnel or for any particular person. Moreover, such an allegation has no legs to stand in view of Clause 23 & Clause 24 of the Vacation Agreement. The Complainant after going through all the clauses in detail had herself signed the Vacation Purchase Agreement which is a standard form contract having all the terms and conditions and benefits under the membership. Thus, in order to run away from terms & conditions of a valid contract, the Complainant has concocted a false story and that too without any evidentiary proof. Further, in response to her queries/requests, the Complainant was clearly told by the Customer Care Executives of the Opposite Parties that she cannot terminate the contract unilaterally and ask for any refund after six months of purchasing the Vacation Membership. While denying all other allegations and pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a counter affidavit/ rebuttal, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
7.         The case of the Complainant is that she purchased vacations from Opposite Parties on 24.7.2013 by depositing Rs.70,000/- as per Annexure C-1 and C-2. Annexure C-4 is the receipt of Purchase Agreement for Vacation Membership. Annexure C-5 (colly) are the various e-mails and notices sent to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant with the request for cancellation of the membership. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties did not honour their commitment of giving special benefits to the families of Army Personnel as committed by them initially. Secondly, she has alleged that holiday process was online and was on first come first serve basis.
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that no such commitment was made to the Complainant that Opposite Parties will book holidays at very short notice for the families of Army Personnel and the Complainant herself has signed the Vacation Membership Agreement (Annexure C-4). It has been further contended that the Complainant cannot terminate the contract unilaterally and ask for refund after lapse of approx. six months of purchasing the Vacation Membership.
9.         After scrutinizing the entire document placed on record by the parties, we find that there is no clause in the Vacation Agreement, which could entitle the families of the Army Personnel to get the holidays at a very short notice.  Further, there is no clause according to which the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid by her. In the absence of any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, the allegations made by the Complainant being bereft of any substance are hereby rejected.   
10.         There is no denial of the fact that the Complainant opted for Blue season plan. Clause 12 of the Vacation Purchase Agreement, which was duly acknowledged by Complainant by affixing her signatures, provides member of Blue season has to book the holidays between 60 to 45 days in advance and after the stipulated dates, all the members have an equal opportunity to book their holidays. We feel that the Complainant was free to opt for White season or Red season membership, in case she wanted to book the vacation at very short notice. Thus, estoppel lies against the Complainant after she has affixed her signatures thereby acknowledging terms and conditions of the Agreement. 
11.         The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties got many documents and blank papers signed from her. However, we are not impressed with the same. In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he/she has read the document properly and understood it and only then he/she has affixed his/her signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. Here we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5994 of 2004 - Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Versus M/s Agarwal Steel, 2010(1) SCC 83.     
12.         It has also been alleged by the Complainant that as per Annexure C-6 (colly) Membership is open only to Indian Nationals/ Non-Residents residing in Hyderabad/ Secunderabad. But we are of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in the above mentioned line as the Complainant being an Indian national is very much entitled to the vacation and it has nothing to do with her residence at Chandigarh or not having residence at Hyderabad. 
13.         It is pertinent to mention that Vacation Purchase Agreement was entered into on 24.07.2013 as per Annexure  C-4 and the Complainant sent the request of refund on 03.12.2013 as per Annexure C-5 i.e. after a gap of approx. six months of the Agreement. Apparently, there was no protest or grievance made immediately upon purchasing the vacation membership which clearly shows that such allegations are after though and are without any evidentiary proof.
14.         The Complainant has also alleged that as per Clause 2 of the Vacation Purchase Agreement, the Opposite Parties must have transferred her vacation to any other person, but we feel that it is the duty of the Complainant to introduce the transferee who would like to enjoy the Membership benefits. However, there is no cogent, authentic evidence with regard to the fact that the Complainant ever introduced any friend of her to the Opposite Parties for the purpose of transfer.
15.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

16.

Announced

30/06/2016                                                       

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER