Holding it responsible for failing to provide the promised facilities, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed a holiday resort to pay Rs 30,000 as compensation to a Sector-11 resident.
Disposing of a complaint filed by Neelakshi Chopra, the consumer forum also directed Chennai-based Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited to pay Rs 10,000 as cost of litigation.
Chopra had moved the consumer forum stating that she had purchased a time share in Sterling Aldeia Branca at Benaulim beach, Goa, from Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd in 1996, and she was assured that she could have a beach holiday in Goa at New Year's eve every year till 2096.
She claimed that she was also promised a seven-day holiday for the resort at Sterling Aldeia Branca at Benaulim Beach, Goa, from December 29 to January 4 every year while issuing a membership certificate from 1998 to 2096 as a premium time share holder. Besides, she was entitled to regular apartment having accommodation for four adults, she submitted.
She alleged that despite assurance she was never given the promised accommodation at Aldeia Branca for a single week from 1996 till date on the grounds that the resort was unavailable.
Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited denied the allegations claiming that since the construction of the resort could not be completed due to reasons beyond their control, they provided equivalent accommodation at Vagator in accordance with terms and conditions. The resort said they always provided accommodation whenever the request was made by her and she had accepted and availed of holidays without protest.
Consumer forum presided over by PL Ahuja on January 30 held, "There is a huge qualitative difference in Goa between the experience of staying at beach resorts and staying at a hotel far away from the beach. Furthermore, in the absence of the kitchen facilities, the complainant could not cook food according to her own preference. In other words, there is no cogent evidence of providing equivalent accommodation to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service."