Facts

The complainant, Vijay Khatri, purchased a 10-year membership from Club Valero for a total consideration of ₹1,30,000. He stated that he paid ₹80,000 towards the membership, which was intended to provide vacation and hotel-related services during the membership period.

Khatri subsequently planned a domestic tour and approached Club Valero for hotel/vacation accommodation. According to him, despite repeated requests, the company failed to provide the booking and did not respond effectively to his communications.

He sent an email dated February 18, 2023 seeking the required booking and also approached the company's manager and customer-care service. Alleging that he received no effective assistance, he decided to cancel the membership and sought a refund.

The complainant sent a legal notice dated April 29, 2023. According to him, the company responded that the cancellation request would be processed and the refund made within the stipulated 90-day period, but the amount remained unpaid even after expiry of that period. He consequently approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund and compensation.

Club Valero failed to appear before the Commission and was proceeded against ex parte on October 8, 2024. The complainant thereafter led evidence and placed on record the membership agreement, payment documents, legal notice and the company's reply.

The Commission noted that although the receipt produced by the complainant reflected payment of ₹65,000, Club Valero's own reply dated May 10, 2023 expressly acknowledged receipt of ₹80,000 towards Membership No. CV5820822. The Commission therefore treated ₹80,000 as the amount received by the company for determining the relief.

Commission's Observations

The Commission noted that Club Valero's own reply acknowledged that the complainant's booking request dated February 18, 2023 could not be fulfilled because the requested destination was unavailable. The company had also acknowledged receipt of the cancellation request dated March 1, 2023 and stated that the refund would be made within the period stipulated under the membership terms.

The Commission clarified that mere non-availability of a particular destination on a particular date would not, by itself, necessarily establish deficiency in service, particularly where the membership terms contained conditions relating to availability.

However, once the cancellation request had been received and processed, Club Valero was required to comply with its own contractual terms governing refund. The company did not place any evidence before the Commission establishing that the admitted amount of ₹80,000 had been refunded within the stipulated period.

The Commission therefore held that the company's failure to comply with its contractual commitment regarding refund amounted to deficiency in service. It further observed that the stipulated period for processing/refund did not confer an unlimited right on the company to retain the complainant's money beyond that period.

The Commission also found that the complainant had suffered inconvenience and mental agony after paying for the membership, attempting to avail the promised services and thereafter being compelled to approach the Commission to secure a refund of his own money.

Decision

The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Club Valero to pay ₹80,000, along with 6% annual interest from July 25, 2023, the date of filing of the complaint, until actual realisation.

It further awarded ₹15,000 towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

The amounts are to be paid within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order. In case of failure to pay the ₹80,000 principal amount within that period, the amount will carry 7.5% annual interest instead of 6% from expiry of the 45-day period until actual realisation.