Club to pay Rs 25,000 compensation to SAS Nagar resident
Holding Country Club India Limited (CCIL), a entertainment and leisure conglomerate, deficient in services and guilty of unfair trade practices, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed the company to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to a SAS Nagar resident.chandigarh Updated: Oct 09, 2013 00:23 IST
Holding Country Club India Limited (CCIL), a entertainment and leisure conglomerate, deficient in services and guilty of unfair trade practices, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed the company to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to a SAS Nagar resident.
Disposing of a complaint filed by Jaswinder Kaur, a resident of Sector 69, SAS Nagar, accusing CCIL of failing to honour the promises made to her while making her a member, the consumer forum has directed CCIL "to make necessary changes in the agreement, as per the promises made or refund Rs 70,000, along with 9% interest from the date of its deposit till it is paid." CCIL would also be paying Rs 7,000 as the cost of litigation.
Consumer forum in its order said, "CCIL even failed to honour its own commitment, which was written down in black and white on the approval form. This act definitely amounts to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice."
"CCIL itself ignored the service tax component on the offer and cannot claim the same," said the consumer forum.
Jaswinder Kaur, in her complaint said to have opted for a 10-year Vacation Member (Blue) offered by CCIL in April 2012 after paying Rs 70,000 towards membership following an assurance that it would be a one-time payment, inclusive of all taxes and no amount except the annual maintenance charges would be claimed from her.
Jaswinder moved the consumer forum alleging that various deviations and contradictions in the terms and conditions were made in the draft agreement.
In its reply, Country Club India Limited (CCIL) denied indulging in unfair trade practices and submitted that Jaswinder only wanted to wriggle out of her contractual obligations and to avoid payment of outstanding dues related to annual maintenance charges.