Timeshare holiday firm to pay Rs 2 lakh to retired Colonel

Retired Colonel SP

Putchala

had taken a platinum membership of

Mahindra Holidays

& Resorts India Ltd by paying Rs 1,49,730. In his absence, a company official collected a cheque for Rs 1,89,240 from his wife on the grounds that the original cheque had been misplaced. When Putchala protested, he was offered certain additional benefits and freebies.


Even though the entire membership amount had been paid, Putchala started receiving calls to pay EMIs. What’s worse is when he tried to make a booking, he was told rooms were not available. When he wanted to accumulate the timeshare weeks, he was allowed to do so only for three weeks. Finally, when reservation was given for Egypt,

Zimbabwe

and South Africa, the visa authorities sought a verification to confirm the booking.

As the request was ignored, visas were not issued by Zimbabwe and South Africa. Later, when Putchala tried to book for Coorg, he was denied accommodation as some payment was supposedly overdue. Even the complimentary air tickets on Air Deccan could not be used as flights were cancelled, requiring Putchala to pay a last-minute higher fare.

Exasperated, Putchala filed a complaint before the Andhra Pradesh State Commission. He claimed his health had suffered due to harassment, resulting in loss of job opportunity.

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd questioned the Commission’s jurisdiction on the ground that the timeshare agreement conferred jurisdiction on the courts at Chennai.

Maintainability

of a consumer complaint was also disputed as the agreement contained a provision of arbitration of disputes.

The company stated Putchala was not entitled to a refund as the agreement stipulated refund would be given only if it was sought within 10 days of payment of the membership fees. They also argued that timeshare exchange was to be done by RCI India Pvt Ltd so it could not be held liable for the

grievances

raised. RCI, on the other hand, argued there was not privity of contract and that it has not made any representation to Putchala, so it could not be held liable.

Overruling the objections, the State Commission allowed the complaint and order Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd to pay Rs 2 lakh and costs of Rs 5,000. Putchala as well as the company appealed against the order.

The National Commission observed the entire gamut of events established deficiency of service in every single aspect. By its order of May 2, 2019 delivered by M Shreesha for the Bench headed by justice R K Agrawal, the National Commission dismissed both the appeals, observing Putchala was entitled to a refund but his claim about loss of job opportunity was incorrect.

Accordingly, the order of the State Commission was upheld, and costs were increased from Rs 5,000 to Rs 20,000.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e-mail isjehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)