Punjab State Consumer Commission Quashes Refund Order Against Country Club; Says Complainant Didn't Clear Mandatory Dues
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Mr. Vishav Kant Garg (Member), has allowed an appeal filed by Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., setting aside the District Commission's direction to refund the membership fee. The State Commission held that the complainant himself was in breach of the agreement by failing...
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Mr. Vishav Kant Garg (Member), has allowed an appeal filed by Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., setting aside the District Commission's direction to refund the membership fee. The State Commission held that the complainant himself was in breach of the agreement by failing to pay the outstanding balance of ₹10,000 and the mandatory Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC), and therefore was not entitled to avail the holiday benefits.
Brief Facts
Rajiv Vohra, the Complainant, purchased a five-year family vacation plan under the Blue Season category from Country Club Hospitality and Holidays (Opposite Party) after attending a presentation conducted at Hotel R.K. Regency, Gurdaspur. On 28-09-2018, he paid Rs. 60,000/- for membership, on the assurance that he would receive 21 days of free boarding and lodging per year. On the same day, the Opposite Party issued Club Membership No. CCCDG203V5LB30554.
In December 2018, when he attempted to book a vacation at Goa, and later in January 2019 for Bangalore and Ooty, the Opposite Parties allegedly refused his requests and demanded an additional ₹10,000.
Claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Commission, Gurdaspur, seeking refund of the membership amount along with compensation and litigation costs.
The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed refund of ₹60,000 with 9% interest. Aggrieved, the Opposite Parties filed an appeal before the State Commission.
Arguments by the Complainant
Rajiv Vohra, the Complainant, submitted that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service by failing to provide the holiday benefits that were assured at the time of membership enrolment. He argued that after paying ₹60,000 towards the membership, he was entitled to 21 days of boarding and lodging each year, but when he attempted to book vacations for Goa in December 2018 and for Bangalore and Ooty in January 2019, the Opposite Parties declined his requests and instead demanded an additional ₹10,000.
The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Parties induced him into purchasing the plan by making false promises and thereafter refused to honour the commitments made during the presentation. He contended that such conduct amounted to cheating consumers and imposing illegal monetary demands. He therefore sought a refund of ₹60,000 with interest, along with compensation and litigation expenses.
Arguments by the Opposite Party
Country Club Hospitality contended that the Complainant had failed to clear the outstanding balance of ₹10,000 from the total membership fee of ₹70,000, though he was required to deposit the amount within 45 days of enrolment. It was further submitted that the Complainant had also defaulted on paying the mandatory Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC) of ₹10,500 per year, as reflected in the Welcome Letter and the terms of the Vacation Sale Agreement.
The Opposite Party argued that, under the relevant clauses of the Agreement, the Complainant was entitled to avail holiday benefits only upon clearing all dues, and therefore, no booking could be provided until the payments were made. The Club maintained that it was always willing to offer the services in accordance with the Agreement.
It was further submitted that the Complainant had deliberately concealed the signed Vacation Sale Agreement while filing the complaint, amounting to suppression of material facts. As the Complainant himself was in breach of the contractual terms, the Opposite Party argued that the District Commission erred in granting relief and that no deficiency in service could be attributed to it.
Observation by the Commission
The State Commission disagreed with the findings of the District Commission and observed that the Complainant had suppressed material facts and failed to comply with the terms of the Vacation Sale Agreement. It noted that the Complainant had deliberately not placed the signed Agreement on record while filing the complaint, despite the fact that the Agreement constituted the governing contract between the parties. Such concealment, the Commission held, disentitled him from any relief.
From the Welcome Letter and the Agreement, the Commission found that the total membership fee was ₹70,000, of which the Complainant had deposited only ₹60,000. The balance ₹10,000 was required to be paid within 45 days of enrolment but remained unpaid. The Commission further observed that the Complainant had also defaulted in paying the mandatory Annual Maintenance Charges of ₹10,500 per year. As per the contractual clauses, holidays could be availed only after clearing all dues.
The Commission held that since the Complainant himself had failed to honour his obligations under the Agreement, he was not entitled to avail holiday benefits, and the refusal of the Opposite Parties to provide bookings could not be treated as deficiency in service. Finding sufficient material to show that the Complainant was in default, the State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission's order, and dismissed the complaint.
Case Title: Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. vs Rajiv Vohra F.A No.162 of 2024