Contractual terms must be adhered to; violation results in forfeiture of claims.

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner / Complainant against Respondents / Opposite Parties challenging the impugned Order dated 30.7.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, in Appeal bearing No. A / 304/2019. vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, UT Chandigarh, in Consumer Complaint No. CC / 522/2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant took membership of "Sterling Holidays on the assurance of Mr. Mohit Sharma, representative of the Opposite Party that he would be provided with two weeks accommodation at Toronto from 16th July and Mr. Mohit Sharma would also contact the facilitator for VISA and accommodation. Consequently, the Complainant made a down payment of Rs. 1,58,565 on 1.2.2018, and the balance through two post - dated cheques bearing Nos. 847734 payable on 7.2.2019, and 847732 payable on 7.2.2020. The Complainant received an E - kit through Email on 24.2.2018 bearing his membership ID and E - kit ID No. 1237989. However, he was informed in the first week of May that the accommodation could not be provided on the place and date of Complainant's choice and alternate options were given for another place and date. It was stated that the failure of the Opposite Party to honour its commitment resulted in increased the costs of air ticket and hotel booking, thus subsequently increase in the Complainant's cost of travel. Consequently, the Complainant wanted to end his membership with the Opposite Party. He therefore sent a written request seeking refund and return of post - dated cheques vide letter dated 23.5.2018. However, no information was received from the Mohali office of the Opposite Party and his registered letter sent to the Chennai office was returned undelivered. The Complainant also sought refund via Email, which was denied. It was the case of the Complainant that the requirement of accommodation was projected six months in advance, the booking request was made within two days of applying for membership, and the Opposite Party refused the accommodation after two months. Had it been told to the Complainant that the Opposite Party would be unable to provide accommodation, the Complainant would not have taken the membership or got it cancelled within two days. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party for its failure to honour its commitment. He therefore sought refund of Rs. 1,58,565, apart from return of the post - dated cheques, Rs. 23,000 spent as additional expenses on Air ticket, and Rs. 91,000 for hotel booking.

3. The Opposite Party resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended by the Opposite Party that the parties were bound by the terms of the Contract and the Complainant could not be granted any relief in contradiction with the Policy terms, and that he was fully aware of the terms of the membership plan before purchasing it. The Complainant has filed the present complaint only to by - pass the Clause No. 12(iv) which speaks about the cancellation mode. It was contended that the Application Form was executed on 2.2.2018 and request for cancellation was made on 23.5.2018, thereby violating the Clause No. 12(iv) of the Membership Application Form and the refund of membership fees would be as per the said Clause itself. The period for cancellation as per rules is to be calculated from realization