The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under the lead of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, clarified the limitations of its Revisional Jurisdiction. It explained that it only gets involved in certain situations, like when a State Commission has overstepped its powers or neglected to use them appropriately.
The case at hand involved a couple who were enticed into taking a membership with the Country Vacations/club by a representative. The membership was priced at Rs. 86,000, out of which they paid Rs. 71,000 via debit card and gave Rs. 15,000 in cash. However, they were later informed that they wouldn’t receive a membership card as they had been promised. Instead, they were asked to pay an additional, previously undisclosed fee of Rs. 5,000 for membership details. They paid this amount, but the club only acknowledged the initial Rs. 71,000, not the full Rs. 86,000. The club then informed them about a compulsory annual administrative fee of Rs. 10,500, irrespective of whether they used the facilities or not. The club also offered benefits like a holiday package. Despite numerous attempts to utilize these services, the couple was denied access and their request for a membership refund was also turned down. They issued a legal notice, which the club ignored. Disappointed with the poor service and unfair practices of the club, the couple filed a consumer complaint asking for a refund of Rs. 86,000 and Rs. 5,000 along with 18% interest, compensation for mental distress, and legal costs. The District Commission ruled in their favor, but the club appealed to the State Commission which also dismissed the complaint. The club then filed a revision petition against the State Commission’s decision, which led the couple to challenge the Revisional Jurisdiction of the National Commission.
The club admitted that the couple had paid Rs. 71,000 for a membership of Rs. 86,000 through three transactions. They stated that according to their agreement, there was an annual charge of Rs. 10,500 excluding taxes, payable in advance every year, even if the facilities were not used. The club also mentioned that the agreement had a 10-day cooling-off period, during which the membership could be cancelled and a refund could be obtained after deducting Rs. 3,800. After this period, the membership fee would be non-refundable. They claimed that the couple had failed to pay the Annual Maintenance Charges as per the agreement, thereby forfeiting their right to the benefits. The club denied all other allegations and asked for the complaint to be dismissed.
Drawing on previous case law, the Commission referred to Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr, where the National Commission limited the scope of its Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. It also cited Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold RushSales and Services Ltd., where the Supreme Court stated that the National Commission should not interfere with the concurrent findings made by the District Forum and the State Commission unless there are substantial reasons for doing so. In this case, it was deemed that the National Commission didn’t have enough grounds to accept the revision petition.
The Commission found no merit in the club’s petition and upheld the order given by the state commission. This case serves as a reminder that consumers have rights and legal recourse is available when those rights are violated. It also highlights the importance of fully understanding all terms and conditions before signing any agreement.
