ROYAL GOAN BEACH CLUB Vs. USHA PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants have preferred the claim for Rs. 14,04,549/- against the opposite parties for their inability to provide resort accommodation at Singapur during the last part of 1995, but instead they arranged the accommodation at Malaysia between 16-12-95 to 23-12-95. The complainants had informed quite in advance about their desire to travel to Singapur and that they had planned the trip accordingly. Surprisingly, the opposite parties failed to provide the accommodation as indicated above.

(2.) The facts are that the complainant applied for membership for the Royal Goan Beach Club for availing on the holiday resort facility. It is stated that the opposite parties had arranged presentation ceremony on 18-9-94 and at the ceremony, the complainants indicated that their son was studying in Singapur and that they wanted to travel to that place. By virtue of this membership, the complainants were given a rosy picture that they would heavily save on hotel charges and that they could even exchange their accommodation and gain as high as Rs. 5,50,000/- per week. The opposite parties further represented that there was 98% satisfaction of demand for the holiday resort. Accordingly, the complainants paid Rs. 17,800/- and Rs. 1,10,000/- for the membership respectively on 18-9-94 and 5-10-94. The payment was made to Prestige Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. This amount was raised by borrowing the same from Syndicate Bank at an interest of 19.25% p.a. This investment was to obtain holiday resort accommodation. As per the agreement, this was a sort of a right to the complainants to have share in the immovable property on ownership basis. It was in the nature of Time share in the immovable property. The said rights could be transferred.

(3.) It is also contended that if the entire accommodation is not reserved, the complainants were entitled to Bonus Week Holiday Entitlement. The opposite parties were affiliated to Hutchinson & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party No. 5) which had resort accommodation throughout the world. The Opposite party No. 1 & 2 also contended that they have connection with O.P. No 4 Resort Condominiums International (R.C.I.) which have their office at Bangalore. The complainants informed O.P. No. 1 and 2 to make arrangements for their visit to Singapur in the year 1995 and paid exchange fee of Rs. 3,200/-, but there was no response from the opposite party. There appeared a news item in The Mumbai Age newspaper that these schemes were bogus and that is why the complainants felt apprehensive. They informed the opposite parties, but they were given to understand that their appointment was fixed on 16-10-95 in regard to the visit to Singapur, but the same was also cancelled. The complainants have alleged that in not providing the accommodation at Singapur, in spite of advance notice, there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The R.C.I. membership was delayed by about 20 weeks and hence, the compensation under various heads amounts to Rs. 14,04,549/-.