State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... vs Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) ... on 10 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 588 of 2008
Date of institution : 13.6.2008
Date of decision : 10.09.2012
Deepak Maghan son of Late Sh. Sat Parkash Maghan, C/o
Maghan Packers Pvt. Limited, Jind, Road, Sangrur.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited, Head Office,
Fathima Akhtar Court, 312, Anna Salai, Chennai-600018
through its Managing Director
2. Sterling Holidays Resorts (India) Limited, Regd. Office
406, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai through its Director.
.....Respondent/O.Ps
First Appeal against the order dated
16.5.2008 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before:-
Sardar. Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Sardar. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the learned District Forum directed the O.Ps to refund the amount of Rs. 98,500/- First Appeal No.588 of 2008 2 deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation and also to pay him Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant is that he became a member of Sterling Timeshare Scheme floated by the O.Ps and deposited Rs. 98,500/-. The O.Ps also received from him Rs. 12,000/- vide demand draft dated 31.3.2000 by offering him a membership of RCI. In the year 2004 he booked one twin sweet apartment at Mussoorie from 23.6.2000 to 30.6.2000 for his younger brother and the confirmation voucher dated 18.4.2000 was issued by the O.P/respondent. However when his brother reached Sterling Holidays Resort at Mussoorie with his family, accommodation was not provided to him due to non availability of rooms. Chand Maghan and his family suffered great harassment and mental agony because they could not get accommodation anywhere in Mussoorie and had to come back. Again in May 2005 the complainant got booked one twin sweet apartment from 15.6.2005 to 30.6.2005. The O.Ps/respondents however did not give him any reply and thereafter the complainant sent a reminder dated 16.6.2005. Since the O.Ps/respondents had not sent any confirmation, the complainant had to change the programme and requested for booking from 25.6.2005 to 10.7.2005. The letter was delivered to O.P/respondent No. 2 on 20.6.2005 but no reply First Appeal No.588 of 2008 3 was sent by the O.P. Dissatisfied with the service provided by the O.P, the complainant served a legal notice dated 27.6.2006 in response to which they telephonically assured him to look into the matter and promised to send him a gift music system but thereafter did not do anything. The complainant therefore filed the present complaint for refunding of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 98,500/- and Rs. 12,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also a compensation of Rs. 2 lac for mental agony and harassment. He also prayed for Rs. 22000/- as litigation expenses.
3. A notice was sent to the O.Ps but even after a lapse of 30 days it was not received back served or unserved. It was therefore presumed to have been served. The O.P. No. 2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 21.8.2006. Since O.P. No. 1 was not served a publication was issued in the 'Daily Amar Ujala' for 7.2.2008. None appeared for O.P. No. 1 and it was therefore proceeded against ex-parte on 7.2.2008.
4. Complainant was given opportunities to lead evidence in support of his contention.
5. Learned District forum after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the complaint. The complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
First Appeal No.588 of 2008 4
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that he had deposited Rs.98,500/- on 04.07.1995 as is clear from the opening line of time share agreement Ex. C-2 but the learned District Forum granted interest only from 20.06.2005. His contention is that even interest has been allowed @ 9% p.a. and not 18% p.a. as prayed by him. A perusal of Ex. C-2 shows that this agreement was executed on 04.07.1995 when the amount of Rs.98500/- was deposited by the complainant. The O.Ps are therefore retaining the amount of Rs.98,500/- since that date but have not extended any benefit thereon to the complainant. The complainant therefore would be entitled to the interest on the aforesaid amount with effect from the said date.
8. It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant/appellant had paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- vide demand draft dated 31.03.2000, but the learned District Forum did not order the refund of the said amount. Ex. C-5 is a receipt dated 31.03.2000 but issued by the O.Ps/respondents having received the aforesaid amount. The complainant was entitled to the refund of the aforesaid amount also because the membership of RIC would not be independent of the membership of O.Ps/respondent. When the complainant was severing all his connections from the O.Ps/respondent and the membership First Appeal No.588 of 2008 5 amount of Rs.98,500/- is being refunded to the complainant he certainly would be entitled to the refund of Rs.12,000/- also. We are of the opinion that the O.Ps would be liable to refund the amount of Rs.12000/- alongwith interest since the date of deposit i.e. 31.03.2000 till its payment to the complainant.
9. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant that when he booked twin sweet apartment from 23.06.2004 to 30.06.2004 for his younger brother at Mussoorie, the O.P/respondent issued a confirmation vide Ex. C- 7 but no accommodation was provided to him. The O.P in this respect issued a letter Ex. C-8 to the effect that accommodation was not provided due to non availability of rooms at Mussoorie. Chand Maghan had gone to Mussoorie alongwith his family and the plight of a person can well be imagined who is deprived of accommodation at eleventh hour. It certainly caused mental and physical harassment to Chand Maghan and his family. According to the complainant he made efforts to get some other accommodation at Mussoorie but could not, and therefore had to return. The next instance is when the complainant sent a letter Ex. C-9 requesting for booking of one twin sweet apartment from 15.06.2005 to 30.06.2005. The letter was sent to the O.P. by courier as is clear from Ex. C-10. Till 15.06.2005 the complainant did not receive any confirmation and therefore he had to postpone his programme. The third default was when on First Appeal No.588 of 2008 6 16.06.2005 the complainant sent a letter Ex.C-11 requesting for booking sweet twin apartment from 25.06.2007 to 10.07.2007. This letter was sent through courier vide Ex. C-12 but no reply was received to this letter also nor any accommodation was provided. The result was that on all these occasions the complainant could not avail of the facilities for which he had taken the timeshare membership of the O.Ps.
10. It was therefore not only deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps/respondent but an unfair trade practice whereby they collected huge amount from the complainant on pretext of affording him accommodation but did not stand to their promise. The case of the complainant further is that he served a legal notice Ex.C-3 on the O.Ps in response to which he received a telephonic call to send a gift to him. The O.Ps however did not send any gift voucher and it appears only a ploy to keep the amount of the complainant with them.
11. Above facts and circumstances reveal that it is case of not only mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant but the O.Ps are indulging in unfair trade practice whereby they collected the money on the pretext of afford accommodation but they did not. The Learned District Forum granted a meagre compensation of Rs.5000/- for the default committed by the O.Ps which is our view is just an eye wash. Therefore we are of the First Appeal No.588 of 2008 7 opinion that the amount of compensation should be increased to Rs.50,000/-.
12. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 16.08.2005 requires modification and the appeal is accordingly allowed. The order is accordingly modified as follows.
1. The O.Ps shall refund the amount of Rs.98500/-
alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 04.07.1995 till the amount is paid to the complainant.
2. The O.Ps shall refund to the complainant the sum of Rs.12,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since 31.03.2000 till the amount is paid to the complainant.
3. The O.Ps shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental tension, harassment and unfair trade practice adopted by them.
4. The complainant would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
13. The entire amount shall be paid by the O.Ps to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same with penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the date of deposit till payment. In case of compensation and counsel fee the rate of interest @ First Appeal No.588 of 2008 8 12% p.a. would however be applicable from the date of filing of the present appeal i.e. 13.6.2008 till the amount is actually paid.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER September 10, 2012. (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) Rupinder MEMBER