2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 762
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/S COUNTRY VACATIONS REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
RACHAKONDA MANJULA – Respondent
SC/36/A/423/2023
##PAGE1##
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A. No.423/2023
AGAINST ORDERS IN
CC.No.513/2021
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION-II,
HYDERABAD
Between:
M/s. Country Vacations,
(A Division of Country Club Hospitalities & Holidays Ltd.,)
Rep. by its Managing Director, 6-3-1219, Cool Building,
Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.
….Appellant/Opposite party
And
1. Rachakonda Manjula, W/o. V.V.R.K.L.S. Babji,
Aged about 54 years, Occ:- House Wife.
2. V.V.R.K.L.S. Babji,
Aged about 56 years, Occ:- Private Employee,
Both are R/o.7-1-65, Bandimelt, Near Sri Rama Lodge,
Secunderabad-500003.
…Respondents/Complainants
Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite party : M/s. LAD legal Services LLP
Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT
&
HON’BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE- MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)
WEDNESDAY THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX
ORDER: (PERHON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-JUDICIAL)
1. This appeal is filed U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019, Appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated
17.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.513/2021 by District Consumer
Commission-II Hyderabad, wherein the District Commission had
passed the following order:-
##PAGE2##2
“In the result, the complaint is allowed in part by directing the
opposite party to:
(i) Refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only) to the
complainant.
(ii) Pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees Twenty thousand only)
to the complainant for causing inconvenience and mental agony.
(iii) Pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards the costs of
litigation to the complainants.
(iv) Rest of the claims made in the compliant is dismissed.
(v) Time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are described as
complainants and opposite party as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The specific case of the complainant No.1 is that on 09.01.2020 she
received a phone call from the executives of opposite party and was
informed that she is one of the lucky draw winner of gifts worth
Rs.25,000/- and that to receive the same she has to visit their office
on 10.01.2020 along with the family. Being lured by such
representation she visited the opposite party office at Begumpet along
with her husband. Upon reaching they were made to sit for 45 minutes
and later noticed that there were several other couples who were
invited. After some time, the manager and executives asked all the
invitees to switch off their mobile phones for security reasons and
started explaining about the various products of their company by
displaying posters and slides and convinced the complainants to take
their club membership. That the complainants were completely
brainwashed and there was also loud music playing due to which the
##PAGE3##3
complainants could not hear the conversation of others and in such
situation the executives of opposite party compelled the complainants
to sign the membership agreement and immediately after signing the
agreement, the music was turned off and announced that the
complainants’ have taken the life membership which have many
benefits and that today is the last day for such offers. Under the said
offer the opposite party promised that:
i) First trip Air Fare is free, as they have tie ups with Airlines. From
next year 20% to 30% concession would be given on Air/Train travel in
India and international irrespective of any number of trips for life
members.
ii) Free transport from Airport/Railway station to Hotel/Resort and
sightseeing. The members would be charged only for fuel.
iii) Free function hall for marriage/birthday parties 5 times in a year
at country club or its affiliated clubs, swimming/Spa/beauty parlour
etc.
iv) Complimentary dinner on weekends etc.
4. Believing the version of the opposite party, the complainants
agreed to take the membership, however as they did not have so much
money paid only 25,000/- which was acknowledged the