- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
DCDRC Holds Lemon And Tree Holidays Resorts Accountable For Not Providing Assured Services Under Holiday Package
DCDRC Holds Lemon And Tree Holidays Resorts Accountable For Not Providing Assured Services Under Holiday Package
Directs the company to refund the amount to the complainant along with compensation and litigation expenses
The Karnal, Haryana, bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Lemon & Tree Holidays Resorts liable for services deficiency and unfair trade practices.
The bench comprising Jaswant Singh (president), Vineet Kaushik (member) and Dr. Suman Singh (member) stated that the company failed to provide services despite charging Rs.1,20,000 for the Holiday Package Membership from the complainant.
It directed the company to refund Rs.1,20,000 to the complainant and compensate him by paying Rs.20,000 along with Rs.11,000 as litigation costs.
An individual, Sanjeev Saxena, the branch manager of Lemon and Tree Resorts, enticed the complainant to subscribe to the company’s Holiday Package Membership.
The complainant agreed to avail of a 10-year membership package. As per the terms of the agreement, the company committed to providing a yearly 4 nights/5 days tour package, featuring deluxe/studio apartment accommodation, for which Rs.1,20,000 were paid, along with Rs.5000 as Annual Maintenance Charges.
Consistently, the complainant paid Rs.4999 as Annual Maintenance Charges to the company.
However, on requesting the services for a planned trip to Jaipur on 03-04 December 2022, the complainant received an unsatisfactory response on WhatsApp from the company. Subsequently, an email sent to the company bounced back due to an allegedly unavailable email address.
Later, the complainant tried to book the package through the company's website, but it did not materialize. After correspondence, no satisfactory response was forthcoming from the company.
Aggrieved by the company’s treatment, the complainant approached the DCDRC and filed a consumer complaint against the company, which failed to appear before the Commission for the proceedings. The matter was thus proceeded against the ex-parte.
The District Commission noted the evidence presented by the complainant about paying Rs.1,35,000 to the company, which did not fulfill its promise.
The bench thus held Lemon and Tree Resorts liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. It ordered the company to refund Rs.1,10,000 to the complainant with a 9 percent interest from the date of deposition of the membership amount until realization. Additionally, it was directed to pay a compensation and litigation costs that the complainant incurred.