ANIL HUNJAN Vs. COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LIMITED
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-1-2
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 21,2014

Anil Hunjan Appellant
VERSUS
Country Club (India) Limited Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant and his wife were called at Hotel Aroma, Sector 22, Chandigarh on 2.8.2012 by the Opposite Parties, for becoming a member of their club for 10 years vacations. It was stated that the complainant came back to his house as he wanted to study the concept. It was stated that the consultant of the Opposite Parties came to the house of the complainant at around 9.00 PM on 2.8.2012 and again explained the scheme and allured him with rosy picture of the club. It was further stated that as it was 11.00 P.M., the complainant showed his inability to pay Rs.70,000/ -. It was further stated that on the asking of the said consultant, the complainant paid Rs.40,000/ - through debit card vide receipt, Annexure C -1. It was further stated that the consultant of the Opposite Parties, namely Ms. Jyoti also gave some illustrations on a survey sheet and plain papers to the complainant (Annexure C -2 Colly.). It was further stated that the complainant again visited the booking desk of the Opposite Parties on 3.8.2012 and paid Rs.26,500/ - by way of cheque and Rs.3,500/ - in cash to them. It was further stated that the membership agreement (Annexure C -4) was got signed from the complainant and a free holiday voucher dated 2.8.2012 (Annexure C -3) was also given to him. It was further stated that the complainant received a letter dated 24.8.2012(Annexure C -5) alongwith the membership agreement signed by the Opposite Parties and was surprised to notice that the date was shown as 14.8.2012 and also the non judicial stamp was affixed afterwards and the seal of the Opposite Parties mentioned the name as Country Club International but the complainant still kept the same being a bonafide customer. It was further stated that the complainant contacted the Opposite Parties for availing of the vacations as per the membership agreement but every time, he was asked for a destination. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties showed their inability to provide the same, on the ground, that the destination was unavailable or they were not having tie -up at the preferred destination. It was further stated that it was informed by the Opposite Parties, that the administration charges of Rs.1,000/ - per day were to be paid, in case, the facility was to be availed. It was further stated that the complainant was not provided the facility as promised and even his free voucher was valid, if Rs.4,000/ - was paid to them. The complainant then asked for the refund of amount paid by him but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite to refund Rs.70,000/ - alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit; pay Rs.50,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.22,000/ - as costs of litigation.
(3.)THE Opposite Parties, in their written version, took up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that since neither the Membership Agreement was executed at Chandigarh nor the any transaction/payment was made at Chandigarh to any representative of the Opposite Parties, therefore, no cause of action accrued to the complainant, at Chandigarh and, as such, the District Forum, Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; and that since there existed an arbitration Clause 12 in the membership/purchase agreement, the matter could be effectively decided by the sole arbitrator. However, on merits, it was denied that the complainant was allured with any rosy picture of the Club. It was stated that rather at the instance of the complainant, he was explained about all the features of the membership and all his queries were resolved. It was further stated that since the complainant went back to his house to study the concept, it could be concluded that he was well aware of the features and terms and conditions of the membership of the club. It was admitted that the complainant visited the hotel on 3.8.2011 for applying for the membership and filled the application form (proposal form), Annexure R -2. It was further stated that the complainant was advised to send the application form (proposal form) and Purchase Agreement, annexed by him as Annexure C -4 with his complaint, filled and signed by him alongwith the requisite documents to the dealing office of the Opposite Parties at #25, Community Centre, First Floor, East of Kailash, Near Sapna Theatre, New Delhi. It was further stated that the application form of the complainant and Purchase Agreement were accepted at the dealing office of the Opposite Parties at New Delhi. It was further stated that, thus, the contract was entered into at New Delhi where the acceptance of offer was made. The Opposite Parties admitted the receipt of payment of Rs.26,500/ - and Rs.3,500/ - and also issuance of free holiday voucher to the complainant. It was further stated that after the application was accepted, it was signed and got notarized by the Opposite Parties and, therefore, it was bound to have the date (14.08.2012) when the Opposite Parties signed the agreement and got it notarized. It was further stated that the complainant without any evidence alleged that he contacted the Opposite Parties for availing of vacations and he was refused the same every time. It was further stated that the procedure for availing the vacations was mentioned in Clause No.3 of the Membership benefits (Annexure 1) of Membership Purchase Agreement. It was further stated that tie up properties were clearly mentioned on the website of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the first line of the holiday gift voucher, Annexure C -3, clearly mentioned that the complainant may enjoy the gift by paying a nominal administration fee of Rs.4,000/ - but he did not pay the same. It was further stated that the cancellation of membership was untenable in the eyes of law and the complainant did not reserve any right to terminate membership unilaterally as per his whims and fancies. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
The complainant filed replication wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written version.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.