E-Paper
Gurugram hotel club told to cough up ₹10K
Had not given Panchkula couple offers promised under a membership worth ₹40,000
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has penalised a hotel club for not giving offers to a Panchkula resident under a membership booking.
The forum has directed Journey’s By Jukaso, Journey’s Resort Private Limited, Gurugram, to refund the booking amount of ₹40,000 along with 9% per annum to Deepak Singla, a resident of Sector 9. The forum also directed the company to pay ₹5,000 to the complainant on athe ccount of mental agony and harassment, besides ₹5,500 as cost of litigation.
The matter dates back to March 2018, when the club had invited Deepak and his wife, Neetu Singla, to a consumer seminar-cum-meeting at Sagar Ratna restaurant in Sector 9, Panchkula. The complainant said they were allured to get a package on the company’s assurance that it will provide reputed hotels and, if the booking amount of membership will be paid then as earliest possible, suitable tour for them.
Deepak paid ₹40,000 to the club representatives and a membership number was allotted to him along with four nights five days package, two complementary gift vouchers and some other offers. The couple later asked for a Jaipur visit but they were advised against it citing that all the forts would be closed. Deepak again tried several times to contact the representatives but in vain.
Later, when he contacted the higher officials, he was told that they were unable to book the rooms for them until April 20, 2018. On this, Deepak requested them to cancel the membership and refund the booking amount, but the club kept dilly dallying on one pretext or another.
Later, he again asked the company representatives to book rooms in a resort in Jaipur after April 20 and again in June for a room in Mussoorie, but he was refused. He said the company had promised to provide them studio rooms with 4- to 5-star hotels, but at the time of booking, they suggested only standard hotels and even refused to provide them.
PROCEEDED EX PARTE
Considering the facts, the forum observed that the company did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. “The non-appearance of the opposite party despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in defence. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted,” ruled the forum.
