State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjiv Gupta vs The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays ... on 22 April, 2022
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH [1] Appeal No. : A/106/2020 Date of Institution : 20/07/2020 Date of Decision : 22/04/2022 Sanjiv Gupta S/o Late Sh. Rajinder Prasad, Resident of House No. 502, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. ....Appellant Vs. 1. The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, 225A-225B, Second Floor, Vipul Agora, M.G. Road, Gurgaon-122001. 2nd Address: The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. 2. Girish Ranjan, Branch Head, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. 3. Shaktibir Waraich, Takeover Manager, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. 4. Sarita, Executive, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. ...... Respondents BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY MEMBER
SH. RAJESH K. ARYA MEMBER
PRESENT
:
Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Appellant in person.
:
None for the Respondents.
[2]
Appeal No.
:
A/111/2020
Date of Institution
:
19/08/2020
Date of Decision
:
22/04/2022
1. The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, 225A-225B, Second Floor, Vipul Agora, M.G. Road, Gurgaon-122001.
2nd Address:
The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
2. Girish Ranjan, Branch Head, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
3. Shaktibir Waraich, Takeover Manager, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
4. Sarita, Executive, The Boutique Club, Tarangan Holidays Pvt. Limited, Wave Mall, City Emporium Mall, SF-26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
....Appellants Vs. Sanjiv Gupta S/o Late Sh. Rajinder Prasad, Resident of House No. 502, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.
.... Respondent BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY MEMBER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA MEMBER PRESENT : None for the Appellants. : Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Respondent in person. PER PADMA PANDEY , MEMBER
This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. A/106/2020 filed by the Appellant/Complainant (Sanjiv Gupta) and Cross Appeal i.e. A/111/2020 filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (The Boutique Club & Others), against the order dated 12.06.2020, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh), vide which it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/711/2019, filed by the Complainant/Appellant (Sanjiv Gupta), qua Respondents/Opposite Parties (The Boutique Club and Others), by passing the following order: -
"11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-
[a] to refund the amount of Rs.97,200/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 24.6.2019 till realization.
[b] to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
[c] To also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
12. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No. (iii) above.
Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that these appeals can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.
Before the District Commission-I, it was the case of the Appellant/Complainant that on 23.6.2019, on being contacted by Respondent No.4/Opposite Party No.4, he and his wife were informed to have been short listed and were invited to Hotel Taj, Sector 17, Chandigarh to collect gift vouchers. It has been averred that Respondents/ Opposite Parties made the offer, Appellant/ Complainant had the privilege to stay in 5 Star Hotels throughout India and abroad in all OP Company and associated properties and list was supplied to him. Certain amount was to be deposited and the service was to be availed of for 14 nights/15 days per year for five years. The entire amount of Rs.1,35,000/- was deposited by the Appellant/ Complainant with the Respondents/Opposite Parties. Vouchers were also given which had statedly expired. The Appellant/Complainant on the very next day had informed by way of notice the amount deposited by him may be refunded as he did not want to avail the services offered. He had sought to cancel the agreement and refund the amount. However, the matter was dilly dallied and the amount was not refunded and slippery offer was made to process the refund after deduction of total 28 per cent of the deposited amount which was not permissive. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum-I (now District Commission-I), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties.
In the reply filed before the District Forum-I (now District Commission-I), while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Respondents/Opposite Parties pleaded that amount of Rs.1,35,000/- was voluntarily deposited to avail the stay for the period as mentioned in the consumer complaint. Parties had signed the Agreement per terms & conditions of the same, in the event of non-acceptance of the service within 10 days from the date of deposit, the amount could be refunded on deduction of 28 per cent in toto of the total deposited amount. Even they were ready to process the refund of the amount after deduction of 28 per cent. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Respondents/ Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh partly accepted the Complaint and issued directions to the Respondents/ Opposite Parties (The Boutique Club & Ors.) as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, the instant Appeals have been filed by the Appellant/Complainant (Sanjiv Gupta), as well as by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (The Boutique Club & Others).
We have heard the Appellant/Complainant Sh. Sanjiv Gupta and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides.
On meticulous perusal of the record we find, Appellant/Complainant had deposited Rs.1,35,000/- on 23.6.2019 with the Respondents/Opposite Parties to avail the offer of 7 nights/8 days etc. in the hotels throughout India and abroad for five years as per details mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the consumer complaint. On the very next day, complainant had refused to avail the services and prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, 28% deduction was to be made in the event of cancellation of the agreement so entered inter se parties. The agreement in its entirety was not rescindable as there was an offer, acceptance, consideration and the parties were legally competent to enter into the agreement which amounts to a valid agreement entered inter se the parties and it was not unilaterally revocable. Thus, the Ld. District Commission rightly held the complainant entitled to the refund of 82% of the deposited amount after deduction of 28% as per terms and conditions of the agreement. However, for taking no steps to refund 82% of the deposited which comes out to Rs.97,200/-, the Ld. District Commission adequately compensated the Complainant by ordering the Respondents/Opposite Parties to refund Rs.97,200/- along with interest, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation. To our mind, nothing more is payable to the Appellant/Complainant. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the adjudication on the merits of the case has taken place since there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties.
No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.
Now coming to the cross appeal bearing No.A/111/2020 filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (The Boutique Club & Others), it may be stated here that the Appellants/Opposite Parties were highly negligent in rendering proper services to the Complainant, inasmuch as, they failed to refund the amount even after lapse of one year from the date of cancellation; rather, they had not even processed the claim as per the terms & conditions of the agreement. It has come on record that the Appellants/Opposite Parties made false promises time and again and took no steps for refund of 82% of the deposited amount. In these precincts, the Ld. District Commission rightly ordered for refund of Rs.97,200/- after deduction of 28% i.e. Rs.37,800/-, along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony & harassment and cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/-. Under above circumstances, no case is made out, in favour of the Appellants/Opposite Parties. Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/111/2020, filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (The Boutique Club & Others) is lame of strength and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
In the wake of above discussion, no interference is called for in the well-reasoned order passed by the District Commission-I, which is liable to be upheld and these appeals being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
Certified copy of this order be placed in Cross Appeal No.111 of 2020.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 22nd April, 2022 Sd/-
(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER