IMPORTANT POINT
In Clause 2 of membership application form mentioned that amount paid towards admission fee non-refundable, complainant not entitled to refund of admission fees while membership cancelled.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. A/11/364 – Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Hemant Kumar M. Wadekar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that OP/petitioner had a scheme of providing membership for enjoyment of holidays in their own resorts in India and in abroad. The Complainant/respondent deposited a sum of Rs.73,304/- in cash with the OP for membership for a period 01.05.2007 to 30.04.2032. The Complainant had selected two bedrooms apartments in Red category. The OP admitted the Complainant to memberships by giving Membership no.255255 and also gave to the Complainant welcome kit and food vouchers worth Rs.8,000/-. The Complainant thereafter paid further sums, in all totaling to Rs.2,08,985/- to the OP. A friend of the Complainant was got married in February, 2007 and was to proceed abroad immediately. The Complainant therefore sought booking of a Resort at Mahabaleshwar for three days for the friend’s honeymoon. The OP confirmed this booking and in turn informed his friend accordingly. The Complainant was informed at the eleventh hour that the booking had to be enjoyed by the Complainant himself and could not be transferred to others, leading to cancellation of the said booking. In December, 2006, the Complainant sought booking of a Resort in Bali, Indonesia from 12.05.2007 to 19.05.2007. This was to be done by affiliate of the OP named RCI. RCI confirmed this on 5th December, 2006. Complainant’s brother was to get married on 18.05.2007 and therefore, on 09.01.2007 i.e. more than four months in advance the Complainant sought rescheduling of the booking but the OP as well as the affiliate refused to reschedule the booking. Therefore, ultimately on 1st March, 2007, the Complainant requested for cancellation of the membership and sought refund. Ultimately, on 7th April, 2007 OP informed the Complainant that a sum of Rs.1,25,391/- would be deducted towards charges for cancellation of membership, Rs.7,500/- towards RCI enrollment charges, Rs.8,000/- towards food vouchers, in all Rs.1,40,891/- and offered to refund a sum of Rs.68,094/- only. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that the dispute be referred to arbitration in terms of membership rules. It was also stated that since the complaint was only for refund of money, the Complainant had to approach Civil Court rather than Consumer Forum. It was further stated that the rules provided for enjoyment of facilities at the Resorts by the members, but when friends of members were to enjoy such facilities some additional fees had to be paid. Since this additional fees were not paid by the Complainant booking at Mahabaleshwar had to be cancelled. As far as failure to reschedule the booking for Resort at Bali in Indonesia, it was stated that the booking had been confirmed by RCI. In the confirmation letter RCI clearly stated that booking would not be rescheduled. It is stated that since RCI had not been made party the complaint had to be dismissed. It was stated that as per Rule 6.2 the Complainant was entitled to an amount of Rs.68,094/- which was offered to the Complainant and therefore, there was no force in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.2,08,985/- with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of complaint Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission with cost vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3. Heard