2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 36878
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/s. Country Vacations – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Poreddy Venkat Ravnamma – Respondent
SC/36/A/683/2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.683 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.314 OF 2020, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD Between:
M/s. Country Vacations, (A Division of Country Club Hospitalities & Holidays Ltd.), Rep. by its Managing Director, 6-3-1219, Cool Buildings, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016.
.…Appellant/Opp.Party And Mrs.Poreddy Venkat Ravnamma, W/o. Mr.Reddy Shekar Reddy, Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Govt. Service, R/o.Flat No.204, Manti Mension, Defence Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad – 500079.
…..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party: M/s.Lad Legal Services LLP Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: M/s.Gopi Rajesh & Associates QUORAM:
HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &
HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *******
Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to allow the instant appeal; quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 23.05.2022 passed in Complaint No.CC.No.314/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad; pass any such other further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant is the Opposite Party and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.314/2020.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that – the Complainant upon receiving a phone call on 06.06.2019 from the Opposite Party, was informed that she won three gifts worth Rs.25,000/- and was asked to visit their office along with her family on 07.06.2019 at 10:30 A.M. at the Opposite Party office premises situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad. Believing the version of Opposite Party, the Complainant visited their office. They were explained about the facilities and attractive offers and were forced to take the membership and made so many false promises. They offered life membership for Rs.1,70,000/-. Upon taking the membership they were offered so many benefits such as – free transport from Airport/Railway station to hotel/resort, for sightseeing, free function hall for marriage/birthday parties, swimming/spa/beauty parlour etc. An offer was made for 7 days/6 nights free of cost for a trip to Switzerland, Italy, England, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo etc., and the Complainant was also informed that membership can be cancelled anytime by deducting only 5% as administration charges.
4. It is submitted that the Complainant paid Rs.1,70,000/- towards membership by swiping her card. A complimentary plot at „Sagar Sundervan Real Venture‟ was allotted to the Complainant. Upon returning home, she realized that there was nothing mentioned in the Agreement as per their oral promises and hidden charges like annual maintenance charges etc., were mentioned in the Agreement. The Complainant requested to convert the amount into EMI, but the Opposite Party failed to do so. Further, the Complainant demanded to book tickets to Kolkata, Delhi and also Auckland (Newzealand), but the Opposite Party failed to book the tickets. This clearly shows deficiency in service on their part.
5. It is submitted that the Opposite Party demanded an additional amount of Rs.79,600/- towards balance payment of plot and registration charges. The Opposite Party also failed to register the said plot in favour of the Complainant. Despite several phone calls and personal visits made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party neither showed the plot nor handed over the possession along with registration of the plot. The Opposite Party also failed to provide the Complainant holiday packages as per their promise. The Opposite Party failed to provide the benefits as assured by them as per the Purchase Agreement. This amounts to unfair trade practice and deficienc