Consumer disputes court nixes claim against Mahindra Holidays

A claim filed by a couple here against Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd was rejected by a consumer disputes' court which ruled that there was no deficiency of service in the company charging extra to allow payment of membership fees in instalments and later refusing to refund the advance paid.
In the order passed last week, President Umesh Jhawalikar and member ND Kadam of the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum observed that the complainants were well- educated and well aware of the conditions laid down in the contract before entering into the membership.
Hence, the company cannot be held liable for refund of the advance and the instalment already paid by them, TDCRF ruled.

The couple, Sulochana and Rakesh Nana Bhoir from Vasai, had complained to the Forum that having opted to buy a Mahindra Holidays membership through instalments, they realised they would be required to cough up much more than the original fee.
The membership fee was Rs 2.65 lakh and, as per the deal entered between them and the company in 2010, they paid 10 per cent of the amount initially with the rest to be covered through monthly instalments over a period of 48 months.
But later, upon calculation, the couple realised that they were actually paying an amount of Rs 3.51 lakh by opting for the instalment facility.

They then wrote to the company asking it to cancel the membership and refund the Rs 33,347 which they had already paid. But the company refused to do so citing a clause in the agreement which stated that payments, including the advance and instalments, would be forfeited in such cases.

Hence, the couple filed a complaint to claim the amount of Rs 33,347 and also an additional Rs 50,000 towards compensation, which was rejected by the Forum.
In their submission, the company disputed the claim and said that in the first place the case did not not fall under the purview of the Forum and that the sum already paid cannot be refunded as per the clause in the agreement.

In their order, the Forum noted that except the complaint, the complainants had not been able to provide any reliable documentary evidence to show deficiency in service.
Citing the S Kumar vs New India Assurance Company, 2004, (III) CPJ-703, case, the Forum held that the complainant had failed to prove there was deficiency in service by the company hence the claim is being rejected.