The Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has directed a hospitality and holiday provider chain to refund ₹1.75 lakh to a consumer and pay another ₹1.5 lakh towards mental agony and litigation costs after finding deficiency in service over its failure to issue a membership card and allot a promised complimentary plot.
A bench comprising President Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Member Bimla Kumari held that the holiday provider had failed to deliver the facilities assured under its “Mr Cool Global Parivar Life Membership” scheme despite accepting payment from the complainant.
Under the September 28 order, the company was directed to refund ₹1.75 lakh, pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and another ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.
Membership Benefits Not Provided
The complainant said he came across the scheme in April 2008 when business promotion executives of the company were promoting it at Connaught Place in New Delhi.
The membership was stated to include lifetime benefits for the member, spouse and parents, as well as children until the age of 18. It also carried an annual subscription of ₹4,000 and was represented as lifelong, transferable and globally valid.
Among the other promised benefits were a 2,000 sq ft plot at Golf Village in Kolad, Maharashtra, on the Bombay-Goa Highway, holidays at properties of the chain for 30 years under Resort Condominiums International membership, short-duration holiday packages, five years’ free access to RCI-affiliated clubs and a Goa holiday package for a couple with a one-way air ticket.
The complainant opted for the membership priced at ₹2 lakh and paid ₹1.75 lakh after receiving a discount of ₹25,000. He was also allotted a membership number.
According to his complaint, the company assured him that the membership card, brochures and other material would be supplied within two weeks, enabling him to use the facilities during the summer vacation.
However, he did not receive the membership card. He claimed that this disrupted a family vacation plan involving his relatives and their children.
He further stated that despite repeatedly contacting officials and submitting documents sought by the company, he did not receive a satisfactory response, causing mental anguish to him and his father.
Holiday Provider Disputes Claim
Advocate Ankur Saini, appearing for the holiday provider, argued that the complainant had neither applied for nor availed any holiday package under the agreement.
The company also disputed the payment of ₹1.75 lakh, contending that the complainant had not produced proof of the payment.
It further argued that he had voluntarily opted for the scheme after understanding its terms and conditions and had paid a non-refundable membership fee.
Regarding the complimentary plot, the company maintained that allotment was subject to conditions, including payment of ₹20,000 towards registration and other expenses, which the complainant had not fulfilled.
Commission Finds Deficiency In Service
The commission rejected the company’s defence after noting that it had failed to issue the membership card required for accessing the promised services and benefits.
It also found the argument regarding payment of ₹20,000 for registration and other expenses unsustainable because the company had not first established that it had discharged its own primary obligations under the membership scheme, including issuing the membership card and allotting the complimentary plot.
The commission observed that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to safeguard consumers from service providers who attract customers with lucrative offers but later fail to provide the promised services.
Holding the holiday provider deficient in service, the commission ordered the refund of the entire ₹1.75 lakh membership payment along with ₹1 lakh compensation for mental agony and ₹50,000 as litigation costs.
