State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Sharmila Goyal vs Coumtry Club Hospitality & Holidays ... on 22 July, 2025
FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025
MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 18.08.2022
Date of Hearing: 17.07.2025
Date of Decision: 22.07.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. 137/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL,
W/O. Mr. Sunil Goyal,
R/O. S-473, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi.
(Through: Mr. Sunil Goyal & Mr. Deepak Advocates)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY& HOLIDAYS LTD.,
Formerly Known as Country Club India Ltd.,
Having Its Registered Office At:
Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad,
Secretariat, Hyderabad-500063.
2. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.,
1st Floor, C- Block, Hudco Palace, Ansal Plaza,
August Kranti Marg, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi.
(Through: Mr. Vineet Anand, Advocate)
...Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9
FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025
MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Sunil Goyal, Mr Nitin, Ms. Jyotsna Sandilya and Ms. Shilpa
Chaurasia, counsel for the Appellant, E-mail:
[email protected])
Mr. Vineet Anand, counsel for the Respondent, (Email:
[email protected]).
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"1. ...the Complainant entered into a holiday agreement with Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP). Complainant took membership of Platinum Club + 30 years 6N7D white U12 membership and paid consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- to OP for the same.
2. It is stated that the representatives of OP-2 informed the Complainant about the advantages of the membership and got the signatures of the Complainant on blank agreement. It was further promised that the membership card shall be delivered to the Complainant within three weeks from the day of payment received i.e 31.05.2017. However, in the month July, 2017, when the complainant received photocopy of the agreement alongwith membership cards, the complainant was shocked to learn about the misrepresentations made by the representatives of OP to the Complainant at the time of enrollment. It is also stated that OP company did not provide the membership card of the son of the Complainant although he was also entitled to all the facilities provided by OP Company under such membership programme.
3. It is next stated that OP-2 also misrepresented that the Gym facilities at Golds Gym, were available for lifetime DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9 FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025 MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
whereas as per the Agreement dated 05.06.2017, the Gym facilities were only valid up to 22.06.2018 and that too for Talwalker's Gym not the Gold's Gym, which could only be availed at the properties owned by OP company. It was also misrepresented that the complainant could access the reservation and availability only at the website of DAE and members of OP company can enjoy their vacation at the properties of DAE. However the Complainant after speaking with the representative of DAE came to know that the said facilities were available only after paying a sum of Rs.12,0007- (USD 200) and the same is only valid for a period of six years. It was further revealed that the respondents have only limited properties and rest of the properties were of DAE. The Complainant was constrained to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- subsequently as the said fact was deliberately and mischievously concealed by OP Company at the time of enrollment.
4. It is stated that OP also misrepresented that the membership is for 99 years, whereas Clause 08 of the Vacation Agreement clearly said the same is renewable after 30 years. It is further stated that Clause 24, of the Club Membership Sale Agreement dated 05.06.2017 which states that the agreement in printed form SUPERCEDES all other communication is illegal, void and amounts to breach of trust. Due to various misrepresentations made by OP, Complainant vide letter/email dated 11.07.2017 informed OP that she was not interested with their membership programme and requested to refund the membership fee of Rs.2,75,000/ - alongwith Rs. 12,928 /- paid to the DAE.
5. As OP paid no heed to the request, Complainant approached this Commission with directions to OP to pay sum of Rs.14.16,000/- and to award pendant lite and future interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount alongwith cost of the complaint.
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 9 FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025
MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
6. OP resisted the complaint stating interalia that Complainant being an educated person, after careful deliberations and on being thoroughly satisfied with all the terms & conditions of the membership signed the binding agreement with OP. It is stated that OP has many schemes and different kind of packages, therefore it is necessary for parties to enter into an agreement to ensure that there is clarity of terms & conditions and the Complainant is aware of his entitlements.
7. It is next stated that the Complainant has received an iphone and also that she was sent Air. Ticket vouchers by OP vide an Email dated 23.06.2017 as per Membership Eligibility, fact which she has withheld to mislead this forum. Further, it is stated that Complainant insisted on getting waiver of AMC despite agreeing to the contrary and signing the agreement. As regards, the son of the Complainant not getting membership it is stated that Complainant herself failed to provide date of, birth of her son which resulted in the card not being issued, to her child. Further it is stated that the Complainant has misrepresented about the lifetime membership for Gym and Spa facility. As Talwalkar Gyms Annual Membership fee ranges from about 12,000/- INR to about Rs 1,00,000/- per month, the Complainant admittedly received a year's membership as part of additional benefit.
8. It is stated that due to AMO defaults committed by the Complainant, her membership has been put in abeyance until she clears her dues of Rs 12,075/-. In the above stated facts and circumstances, it is prayed that compliant be dismissed with exemplary costs."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 08.07.2022, whereby it held as under:
"...11. Preliminary objection raised by OP as regards territorial jurisdiction is found to be unsustainable. As it DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 9 FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025 MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
is seen from the material placed before us that the agreement between parties was signed, membership card was delivered and gift was handed over to the complainant within the jurisdiction of this Commission. As regards Clause 49 and 50 of the agreement between parties, it is settled law that territorial jurisdiction mandated by a statute cannot be ousted by an agreement. As regards the Arbitration clause Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides as under-
"100. Act not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addite all be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any ather law for the time being in force."
12. Second, preliminary preliminary objection raised by OP is that the agreement/contract signed by the Complainant binds the parties as per law. For reference Clause 24 of the Club Membership Sale Agreement is reproduced herein:
"Second Party understands that this Agreement (in the printed form ONLY) SUPERCEDES any communication whether written or oral or any variation or hand written remarks rewriting on the printed Agreement made by the Agents and/or representatives of CCHHL or Second party to this Agreement and/or any other written communication issued by CCHHL representatives (including on company Letter Head or STAMP PAPER). Further, Second party understands that the benefits and terms of membership as set out in this Agreement are final and binding on CCHHL, and Second Party."
13. The above said clause is totally arbitrary, and one sided, which gives liberty to OP and its representatives to misrepresent and lure the consumers. By showing vivid rosy picture to the consumers and entrapping them to sign on the dotted lines of the printed format without giving DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 9 FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025 MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
them enough time to go through the fine print and number of clauses. Therefore, we are of the opinion that OPs objection that since the Complainant has signed on the Club Membership Sale Agreement and is now bound as per law is rejected. As we find certain clauses to be unreasonable and unfair. It is settled law that the terms of the contract are not invincible or indestructible, if these are arbitrary, unreasonable or one sided.
14. It is not in dispute that the Complainant after having paid Rs.2.75.000/- did not avail any services of OP. It is seen that within 02 months of signing the Club Membership Sale Agreement Complainant sought refund from OP being dissatisfied by false representations made by representatives of OP. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that as complainant has not availed any services, OP is not entitled to retain full membership fee of the Complainant. However, it is seen that Complainant accepted an iphone given by OP as a promotional benefit. Therefore, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if OP is allowed to retain Rs.60,000/- towards the cost of iphone and refund the remaining amount.
15. Accordingly OP is directed to refund Rs. 2,27,928/- to the Complainant @5% per annum from the date of refund sought i.e 11.07.2017 within 03 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which OP shall pay Rs. 2,27,928/- @9% per annum till realisation. Additionally, OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the awarded amount on the ground that the District Commission erred in deducting an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards the cost of I-Phone which was given as a promotional benefit to the Appellant for availing the membership of the Respondent. The Appellant further submitted that the cost of I-Phone DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 9 FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025 MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
was Rs. 11,500/- at that time when it was given to the Appellant by the Respondent, thus, the deduction of Rs. 60,000/- towards the cost of I-Phone was unreasonable on the part of the District Commission. Further, the rate of interest @5% which was awarded by the District Commission upon the decretal amount of Rs. 2,27,928/- was unreasonable. Pressing the aforesaid, the counsel for the Appellant prayed for the modification in the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
4. The Respondent/Opposite Party has filed its written reply/ objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the appeal filed by the Appellant. The counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant is not entitled for any relief neither from the District Commission nor from this Commission. The counsel further submitted that the District Commission erred in determining the fact that where there is written and signed agreement the same shall prevail over all the verbal communication and promises. Pressing the aforesaid, the counsel for the Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the present Appeal.
5. Written Arguments on behalf of the Appellant are on record, wherein, the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated.
6. Written Arguments on behalf of the Respondent are on record, wherein, the contents of the Reply to the Appeal have been reiterated.
7. Therefore, the main question for consideration before us that whether the District Commission has failed to award adequate compensation to the Appellant.
8. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the Appellant had instituted Complaint Case No. 393/2017 against the Respondent before the District Commission. The District Commission, after considering the matter on merits, observed that although the Appellant/Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to the Respondent towards membership of the Platinum Club, however, no services whatsoever were availed by the Appellant from the DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 9 FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025 MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
Respondent/Opposite Party. It was further noted that the Appellant had sought a refund within a period of two months from the date of execution of the Club Membership Sale Agreement. Accordingly, the District Commission directed the Respondent/Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs. 2,27,928/- to the Appellant/Complainant along with interest and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-, after deducting an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards the cost of the iPhone which had been provided to the Appellant as a promotional gift from the total consideration amount paid by the Appellant.
9. Now, the grievance of the Appellant in the present Appeal pertains to the deduction of Rs. 60,000/- towards the cost of the iPhone which was given to the Appellant as a promotional gift. The Appellant contended that the cost of the said iPhone was merely Rs. 11,500/- at the time when it was provided as a promotional benefit. However, upon examination of the record, this Commission fail to find any cogent evidence or document placed by the Appellant to substantiate the claim regarding the cost of the iPhone. Further, the Appellant has also failed to mention the specific model of the iPhone received, which could have enabled this Commission to ascertain its exact market value at the relevant time.
10. In view of the foregoing, since the iPhone was admittedly received by the Appellant as a promotional gift from the Respondent, and there exists no documentary proof on record indicating its actual cost to be Rs. 11,500/- nor any document to controvert the valuation of Rs. 60,000/- as taken by the District Commission. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence produced by the Appellant to prove the lower cost of the iPhone, this Commission finds no infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission with respect to the deduction of Rs. 60,000/- towards the promotional iPhone gift.
11. Therefore, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reasons to interfere with the findings DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 9 FA/137/2022 D.O.D.: 22.07.2025 MRS. SHARMILA GOYAL VS. M/S. COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LTD.
of District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission - II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016.
12. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
22.07.2025 LR-AJ DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 9