The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi Comprising Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member), has held Forbcorp Private Limited liable for deficiency of service for failing to provide the promised holiday services. The Commission allowed the complaint and held that an agreement denying a refund under any circumstances is unconscionable and amounts to an unfair trade practice.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Dhruv Kashyap, purchased a 12-year Leisure Ship Plan membership from Forbcorp Private Limited (Opposite Party) for Rs 1,90,000 on 06-03-2022. At the time of purchase, the OP assured the complainant of several benefits, including a fully paid crypto trip to Kerala/Goa, a four-night stay at the Hyatt Hotel, and a 6-night/7-day holiday every year for 12 years at 4-star or 5-star hotels for domestic or international travel.

In April 2022, when the complainant tried to book a trip to Manali, OP failed to honour these requests despite repeated communications through email, WhatsApp, and telephone. On 13-05-2023, via email, the OP informed the complainant that the membership only covered stays in up to 4-star hotels. Aggrieved by the OP's failure to provide the promised holiday benefits, the complainant sought a refund of the membership amount. However, the OP refused the request on the grounds that the membership was non-refundable under its terms and conditions. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 29-01-2024, with no response from the OP.

Consequently, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi, seeking a refund of the membership amount along with compensation.

Despite being duly served with notice, the Opposite Party (OP), Forbcorp Private Limited, failed to appear and was consequently proceeded ex parte.

Observations & Decision

The Commission observed that despite repeated requests through emails, WhatsApp messages and telephone calls, the complainant was not provided the promised holiday bookings. It noted that although the Opposite Party relied on a non-refundable clause to deny the refund, no terms and conditions containing such a clause had ever been supplied to the complainant along with the membership certificate. The Commission further found that the membership agreement contained no exit clause and that the complainant had been induced to purchase the package on representations that were subsequently not honoured.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Texco Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., the Commission observed that consumer fora have the power to declare unfair contractual terms illegal. It held that an agreement denying a refund under any circumstances was unconscionable and amounted to an unfair trade practice. Holding the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency in service, the Commission directed it to refund Rs.1,90,000 with interest at 6% per annum from 13 April 2022, pay Rs.10,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant, and comply with the order within three months, failing which the interest rate would stand enhanced to 8% per annum until realization.

Case Title: DHRUV KASHYAP vs FORBCORP PRIVATE LIMITED

Case No: CC NO. DC/83/CC/68/2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order