Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a leading holiday resorts company to refund Rs 1.66 lakh to Sanjeev Kochhar,a resident of Sector 49-A,for refusing him the holiday promised to him at their resort.
Commission president Justice Sham Sunder and Member Neena Sandhu also directed the company to pay nine per cent interest on this amount to Kochhar with effect from the date of deposit,Rs 50,000 as compensation for the harassment caused to him,and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation.
The Commission upheld the order delivered in this case by the Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I,in March 2010. In his complaint before the Forum,Kochhar had stated that he became a member of the holiday resort company in August 2007 for a period of 25 years. However,the company failed to provide him four one-way free air tickets and free food vouchers worth Rs 3,000. Also,the company did not facilitate the booking of four nights of complimentary holidays at any of their resorts,as promised at the time of booking,for nearly a year.
Kochhar complained that despite this,they sent him an invoice for Rs 7,333 and another invoice of Rs 7,948 in September 2009 as annual subscription fee. He refused to pay this unless he was allowed to avail his freebies. However,the company refused to process his booking under complimentary holidays unless he paid these charges.
After Kochhar demanded a refund of his initial amount,the company asked him to confirm his four nights complimentary booking in one of their resorts before making the flight bookings. Kochhar said he tried his best to get the reservation through the online reservation system,but these were not available for months.
In October 2008,he asked his bank to stop all further payment of installments to the resort company. However,he was told that this could not be done unless the company itself cancelled his membership. Aggrieved,Kochhar filed a complaint in the Forum.
In its reply,the company stated that Kochhar did not clear his annual subscription fee dues,and hence his reservation request could not be processed. The company denied that it failed to honour its commitments to Kochhar in any way.
After considering the case,the Commission observed that Kochhar repeatedly requested the company for the booking but every time,they refused to do so on one pretext or the other. As a result,Kochhar could neither get his air tickets booked,nor was able to use the food vouchers. The order stated that due to this reason,the complainant got frustrated and did not deposit his annual subscription fee and requested the company to refund the amount given earlier by him. The District Forum was right in holding that the complainant was entitled to refund,stated the Commissions order. In this light,the Commission held the company to be guilty of deficiency of service towards Kochhar,and upheld the order given by the Forum against the company. The company had appealed against the Forums order in the Commission.