CHANDIGARH: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II here has directed a holiday service firm to pay Rs 97,000 to a local couple for failing to lodge them in any of its hotels or resorts despite repeated requests and visits.
Complainants Sooba Singh and Kulwinder Kaur, who are from Sector 47, had on September 2, 2018, bought the firm’s membership for Rs 86,000, depositing Rs 71,000 upfront in three debit card transactions. On September 17, 2018, they paid the company the remaining Rs 15,000. After waiting sufficiently for the membership card, they received only a signup detail, saying membership was subject to payment of another Rs 5,000 not mentioned in the agreement.
The couple paid that Rs 5,000 in cash, but received acknowledgement for Rs 71,000 instead of Rs 86,000. They were asked to pay about Rs 10,500 mandatory annual administrative charges, irrespective of using any facility. They were eligible for six nights and seven days of holiday under the Season Blue category, which entitled them to a studio room for two adults and two children aged under 12 years.
The requests for a receipt for Rs 15,000 and Rs 5,000 payments were denied on one pretext or the other. The couple even tried to use the family vacation services in the agreement period but all their bookings were denied, until at last they asked the firm to cancel their membership and refund their deposit. That too was denied.
The company said the couple had signed up for Rs 86,000, but paid only Rs 71,000 in three transactions and not Rs 86,000 as alleged. It cited clause 10 of the agreement to say annual charges of Rs 10,500, excluding taxes, were to be paid in advance every year, irrespective of using the facility, and clause 26 entitled them to a cooling-off period of 10 days from the date of signing, in which they were free to cancel the agreement and claim the refund after deduction of Rs 3,800. Anytime later, the membership fee was non-refundable.
The consumer court held that the firm had lured the couple with false and exaggerated promises, but since there was no documentary evidence of cash payment of Rs 20,000, the couple could not be held entitled to that amount. It said Rs 71,000 should have guaranteed their stay in any of the company’s hotels and resorts, and this failure was deficiency in service, besides unfair trade practice. The court told the firm to refund Rs 71,000, along with Rs 15,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, besides Rs 11,000 as litigation expenses.
