Finding a ‘definite deficiency in service’ on the part of Club Star Wood, New Delhi, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed it to refund the ₹95,000 booking amount to a city woman, who paid this amount for hotel bookings.
It has also directed the club to pay ₹10,000 in compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation expenses.
Sangeeta, a resident of Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, filed a complaint against the travel agency Club Star Wood, New Delhi. She stated that she opted for the services of the company for national and international hotel bookings, for which the she paid ₹95,000.
She submitted in her complaint: “When SBI refused to provide interest free installments, Club Star Wood assured to refund the interest and service tax. Despite, providing all necessary documents, Club Star Wood, failed to refund the interest and the service tax.”
The woman alleged that the company had also assured a jewellery coupon of ₹21,000, flight tickets and stay in Goa for two persons free of cost, but these terms were not fulfilled. The company also failed to honour their commitment of providing a room in Shimla and a booking in Dubai.
“Aghast by the unprofessional services of the club”, the woman sought a refund of her money, with interest, but to no avail. Hence, she moved the consumer forum. The order mentioned: “A notice of the complaint was sent to the club seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on their behalf therefore, proceedings took place ex-parte on January 1, 2020.”
{{/usCountry}}“Aghast by the unprofessional services of the club”, the woman sought a refund of her money, with interest, but to no avail. Hence, she moved the consumer forum. The order mentioned: “A notice of the complaint was sent to the club seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on their behalf therefore, proceedings took place ex-parte on January 1, 2020.”
{{/usCountry}}The forum observed that the opposite party has certainly indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have taken prompt steps to address the grievance of the complainant, which it miserably failed to do and propelled this unwarranted
litigation upon