Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/305/2016

Puja Chadha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anish Gautam

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	305 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	5.5.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	5.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Puja Chadha W/o Sh. Nishant Dawer, R/o House NO.142/1, Badal Colony, Zirakpur 140603, Punjab.

….Complainant

Vs.

1. The Country Club (India) Ltd. through its Managing Director, Office at Amrutha Castle 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp. Secretariate, Hyderabad 500063.
2. The Country Club (India) Ltd. through its authorized signatory having its branch office at Chandigarh, country vacations (A Division of Country club (I) Ltd.) SCO 44-45, above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160015.

 

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                  PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Anish Gautam, Adv.
For OP	:	Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Adv..

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant allured with the  representation of the OPs took their membership by paying a sum of Rs.79000/- and also executed vacation purchase agreement dated 23.6.2013. It is pleaded that the OPs issued membership card (blue season)  after two months alongwith welcome letter mentioning therein that the the members are eligible for 6 nights 7 days for 10 years, season Blue Room Type: studio.  It is alleged that  the complainant sought booking for Goa in the first week of October 2014 but the OPs refused the same and even stopped to reply the emails sent by the complainant.  The OPs at the time of selling membership disclosed that they have asssociated properties in all major locationin India as well as abroad. But at the time of booking by the complainant all assurances for the same were proved to be false.  The complainant sent many emails to the OPs but all in vain. Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.12.2015 seeking refund from the OPs but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted 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.      The OPs in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  the complainant after understanding all the terms and conditions of the membership purchased the Blue Studio Plan and executed the agreement.  It is asserted that the Holiday Booking process is online and first come first serve basis and is open for booking as specified in clause below. Online booking will be confirmed subject to availaibility of the rooms.  Accordingly the OPs issued membership username and password to the complainant with which she could book online holidays but the complainant instead of booking online as per agreement sent an email dated 16.7.2014 to OPs asking for booking at Goa for 2 couples i.e. for four adults+1 kid whereas the membership entitles benefit to only the Member, his/her spouse and 2 kids only, which implies that only 2 adults (husband and wife)  are entitled to benefits under the membership and not 4 adults .  The OPs  have denied any defieicny on their part. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.                 The complainants has filed a rejoinder, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
7.       On perusal the complaint we find that there are only two issues involved, which requires consideration. The first issue revolves around the 15 days late receipt of the membership cards. We have perused the Agreement placed at Annexure C-3 and find that  there is no such clause in the agreement regarding period of delivery of the membership card. Moreover, the membership card is only meant for the identity of the member and is helpful in case member forgets his membership number. Hence no such loss caused to the complainant due to late delivery of the membership card. The next issue which is involved in the instant case is that the complainant could not book the holiday booking for two couples and one kid. We have perused the details of the membership  of the complainant which entitles him benefit only for his/her spouse (two adults) and 2 kids only and not for four adults and one kid. Hence the service to be provied to the complainant were strictly as per terms and conditions of the Vacation Agreement attached with the complaint without any deviation or breach thereof as articulated to the complainant.   Moreover, the complainant did not booked the holiday online which was mandatory as per agreement nor he placed on record any document vide which it could be seen that he made online holiday booking. Thus, we find no merit in the complaint and the same deserves to be  dismissed.
8.      For the reasons recorded, above the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

5.12.2016                       DR. MANJIT SINGH

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER