A Bengaluru resident's invitation to a marketing event turned into a costly lesson after he was pressured into signing a vacation ownership programme without reading the fine print. The second Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Bengaluru Urban ruled in his favor, ordering a full refund and compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The Incident
On July 29, 2023, Murali HN, a 56-year-old resident of RBI Layout, JP Nagar, was invited to a marketing event at a luxury hotel on Vittal Mallya Road. Representatives of the holiday club presented attractive offers but insisted he sign up immediately or lose the special deal. Convinced, Murali applied for the Club Mahindra Bliss Membership on August 27, paying Rs 76,419 that day, with the remaining Rs 16,503 to be paid over 12 months. The next day, company representatives visited his home, collected two cheques, and obtained a signed 10-month ECS mandate.
Fine Print and Booking Issues
The terms of the 10-year membership were only explained orally at a fast pace and never fully read. Murali was told bookings could start from October 1 once his account was activated. He received his credentials on that date but faced repeated failures when trying to book a resort for a family vacation. The company's attitude changed after payment, and on October 3, Murali emailed seeking cancellation and a full refund, stating he had not used any facility and was within the cancellation window. Club Mahindra replied three days later, claiming the admission fee was non-refundable.
Legal Action
Murali instructed his bank to stop payments, but Club Mahindra presented his cheque on October 7, which bounced, resulting in Rs 354 in charges. A second cheque was threatened for November 7. Frustrated, he issued a legal notice on November 18, 2023, and filed a consumer complaint on May 5, 2024. Club Mahindra, represented by counsel, argued that the complaint was an abuse of process, stating that 'Club Mahindra Holidays' is not a legal entity but a brand of Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited (MHRIL). They insisted Murali voluntarily signed the membership form with full knowledge, and since he failed to pay EMIs and annual fees, he was not entitled to a refund. They also claimed he never approached MHRIL with an actual booking request.
Commission's Ruling
The commission observed that Murali was never made aware of the detailed terms at the time of signing. It noted that the terms were one-sided, amounting to unfair trade practice. 'It was a gross abuse of one-sided terms unilaterally set by the opposite party for their own benefit, doing nothing to secure the customer's interest,' the commission said. On May 13, the commission, comprising president Vijaykumar M Pawale and member Anuradha V, ordered Mahindra Holidays and its customer service manager to refund Rs 76,419, pay Rs 10,000 in compensation for deficiency of service, and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
Legal Perspective
Guruprasad MN, advocate for Murali, said, 'The biggest challenge in the case was proving how the entire agreement and process were one-sided. Customers are rushed into making payments with very little time to read the fine print, while the refund terms are structured in such a way that they could not practically evaluate the service before the cancellation window is closed.'
