Delhi Commission Panel Directs Country Inn To Compensate For Misleading Membership Sale

Delhi Commission Panel Directs Country Inn To Compensate For Misleading Membership Sale

In a recent ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Northeast Delhi, led by Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar (Member), found Country Holidays Inn & Suites Pvt. Ltd. (Country Inn) guilty of service deficiency. The company was accused of coercing a customer into paying for a five-year membership and then failing to deliver the promised services or issue a refund. The commission ordered Country Inn to refund the complainant ₹40,440 and pay an additional ₹20,000 as compensation.

The complainant was enticed to attend a promotional event by Country Inn, where they were promised free holiday vouchers and movie tickets. However, at the event, they were pressured by an agent to buy a membership with the promise of extra perks. The complainant, along with his spouse, signed an incomplete form without being able to review the full membership agreement. They paid ₹40,440 via cash and card. Later, finding discrepancies between the verbal promises and the written contract, the complainant sought to cancel the membership but was met with resistance and non-cooperation from Country Inn. This led the complainant to file a case with the District Commission.

Country Inn claimed that the complainant had willingly paid for the membership and had been satisfied with the terms before signing the agreement. They also challenged the jurisdiction of the District Commission, arguing that their offices were not located within its territorial limits. They dismissed the complainant’s claims as baseless and driven by hidden agendas.

The District Commission observed that the complainant was indeed pressured into buying the membership without a proper review of the terms. The payment of ₹40,440 was made with the understanding that the membership could be cancelled. However, Country Inn refused to honour this. The commission confirmed its jurisdiction over the case, noting that the transaction took place within its geographical boundaries. Country Inn’s failure to contest the receipt of payment or to justify its refusal to provide the promised services led to the commission’s decision.

As a result, the District Commission declared Country Inn responsible for the lack of service. It directed the company to return the full amount paid by the complainant, with 9 per cent annual interest from the date of the complaint’s filing until full recovery. Additionally, Country Inn was ordered to compensate the complainant with ₹20,000 for mental harassment and legal costs, also subject to the same interest rate from the order date until payment.