Firm directed to refund Rs1.25 lakh

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, July 15

The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed a private company, offering holiday plans, to refund Rs 1,25,000 to a resident along with Rs 2,000 as litigation expenses for not fulfilling its promises.

Rajinder Singh, a resident of Sultanwind road, had filed a complaint against Country Club Hospitality and Holidays that the opposite party offered a holiday vacation plan through an advertisement.

He alleged that he took the plan as a lot of facilities were offered, including membership of many clubs all over India and abroad, club facilities, spa facilities besides gold coin, dinner set, two-year spa vouchers, 10 extra vouchers for six nights/seven days of vacation and many other verbal assurances.

He stated that he booked one vacation plan for 10 years by paying Rs 1,25,000. He complained that the opposite party did not issue any letter of membership despite repeated reminders and requests.

The opposite party stated that the complainant has paid only Rs 1 lakh and not Rs 1.25 lakh as claimed by him and this breached the terms of the contract. The reply also stated that complainant opted for vacation membership and not club membership.

The forum observed that the opposite party had not produced on record that the complainant had deposited only Rs 1 lakh instead of Rs 1.25 lakh. The forum stated that it was settled principle of law that in case two plausible views were available, under the given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer.

The forum also stated that the opposite party also failed to prove on record that they ever provided any membership letter to the complainant as no such document showing the delivery of membership letter to the complainant was placed on record.

The forum held the opposite party guilty of unfair trade practice for not providing the facilities as agreed by the opposite party. The forum observed that the complainant had suffered mental agony at the hands of the opposite party, it stated.