Case No.20/16
Complainants have filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.85,000/- with interest @14% per annum and R.s 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. OP -1 are Mr. Anuj Pandit and Bhawna Pandit, Chairman and Managing Director, OP-2 is Signature Linkers Pvt.
Ltd.
.1 It is the case of the complainants that they were lured by employees of OP in buying "Season Type Red' for a studio apartment in Grand Holiday Club, RCI and DAE. They were told that family accommodation would be provided ni five/seven star hotel through DAE by paying only Rs.7,200/- per wek ni Asia Region and Rs.12,500/- in International Hotels. It is further stated by the complainant that they were also shown a draft agreement with an exit clause which stated that member would be refunded within seven
days.
Mka
Scanned with CamScanner
1| Page
COMMISSI
COMMISSI
ISTR

S
7.
5.
Case No.20/16
2. The complainants have paid Rs.85,000/- a
was also issued dated 31.01.2015 howe nd receipt ni this regard
under two separate heads of 'adminis ver, the money was split
deposit'.
trative charges' and initial
3. It is the case of the complainants that from next day complainant
no.1 contacted Grand Holiday Club, Bangalore and DAE representative on 01.02.2015 inquiring the procedure for booking five/seven star hotels but he was told that they were not eligible for accommodation as his two sons were 19 and 12 years old and they
can get accommodation only in certain resorts under DAE and they were also intimated that they cannot get RCI membership.
4. It is further stated that the complainant received the call from one of the representatives of OP on 01.02.2015 who was informed by the complainant that they would be exercising their exit option and seeking refund. Complainant also took up hte mater with Grand Holiday Club, Bangalore and DAE for refund of money and was informed that the refund would be given only by OP. An email was then sent to OP on02.02.2015 withreminder on 11.02.2015rand 23.02.2015. It is further stated that complainant then approached M.r Anuj Pandit, Director of OP and sought refund.
It is the case of the complainant that the OP has a contradictory exit and refund clause as the exit clause states that the agreement is terminable if notice is served within seven days whereas the next clause states that no refund would be made. It is stated that OP indulges in lack of transparency relating to description of policies, charges, membership types, apartment types, season types, eligibility
and age limitations, accommodation offered by Grand Holiday Club and DAE membership in unclear terms in order to exploit consumers.
6. tI si further stated that refusal of OP ot refund immediately after hte payment has been made without offering any service and despite the fact that the refund was sought within two days of signing the agreement amounts ot unfair trade practice of OP and amounts ot
cheating.
OP was initially proceeded exparte but the exparte order thweasOPs.et aside by the Hon ble State Commission and reply was filed by
Nka
2| Page
Scanned with CamScanner

8.
In its reply, OP has taken preliminary objections that the compl misconceived and that the complainant has alleged cheati aint is
forgery which is beyond the purview of the cons ng, fraud,
stated that the complaint is without any cau umer court. It si
that the complainant's enter se of action. It is stated
ed into the agreement dated 31.01.2015
after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement and wish to resile from the agreement without any justifiable reason.
OP has further denied all the averments made by the complainant in their agreement. It is stated that OP was ready to arrange additional bed for the elder son at a nominal cost yet the complainant demanded the refund. DISPUTES REDRE
9. In their rejoinder, complainants have stated that the complaint si maintainable as the complainants have been denied Right ot Information', right ot choose and money wrongly taken without providing any service. It is further stated that the agreement lacks transparency and that the OP has deliberately included dubious and
contradictory clauses in the agreement which amounts to malpractice. tI is further stated that inclusion of exit option i s a deception as money is non-refundable.
10. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. I t is seen complainant has paid Rs.85,000/- which was divided as Rs.73,000/- as initial deposit and Rs.12,000/-
as administrative fee, non-refundable for a membership of ten years, Studio Red Type', occupancy 02/02. Agreement dated 31.01.2015 is attached wherein clause 8 talks of exit option and under clause 9 under the refund clause
"it is understood that if the agreement is cancelled as per the clause 7 above by the purchaser/s, marketers shall not be liable to make any refund to the purchaser/s".
Clause 7 deals with "no escalation clause". It is also seen that complainant has written ot OP on 02.02.2015 itself that hte agreement be terminated, cancelled and refund of Rs.85,000/- be made. The emails are placed on record. Further, an email si found dated 25.02.2015 from OP wherein they have offered to the complainant to upgrade the apartment from studio to one Bedroom
3| Page
Scanned with CamScanner

case 10.20/16
and it was stated that ni case of cancellation,
hte non-refundable.
As per the agreement itself placed on record on which reliance has
been placed by the OP, exit option is made available ot the consumer however, refund clause only refers to refund eb made under Clause 7 and not under Clause 8. In the present case, complainant is exercising exit option under clause 8. This fact coupled with hte fact that the invoice issued by the OP is divided into two parts whereas
Rs.73,000/- is taken as initial deposit and Rs.12,000/- as administrative fee (non-refundable) implies that Rs.73,000/~ is
definitely refundable.
RDISPUTES REDRES
Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the complainants have exercised their option of exit in due time of seven days from the date of the signing of the agreement and are eligible for refund as per the policy of the OP. The Commision directs the OP ot refund Rs.73,000/- with interest 7% per anum from the date of deposit til realisation along with comesayifi Thenooutfoot pdaihteocmarmonhts from the date of the order failing which the interest payable on Rs. 73,000/-
would be 9% per annum till realisation.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned ot the record room. order eb uploaded on the website.
dI (Kiran Kaushal)
(U.K.
Member
Member
Mea
(Monika ASrivastava) President
amount received si
4|Page Scanned with CamScanner

夕
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I Udyog Sadan, C-22 &23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-
110016
Case No.20/16
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Narang and Sonia Narang A-172, Preet Vihar
Delhi-110092.
VERSUS
Mr. Anuj Pandit and Bhawna Pandit Chairman &Managing Director
K-28, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar Part-Il New Delhi. '
Coram: 5
Ms. Monika ASrivastava, President: Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
...Complainant
President: Ms. Monika A. Srivastava
Date of Institution:19.01.2016 Date of Order :08.02.2024
Case No.20/16
Complainants have filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.85,000/- with interest @14% per annum and R.s 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. OP -1 are Mr. Anuj Pandit and Bhawna Pandit, Chairman and Managing Director, OP-2 is Signature Linkers Pvt.
Ltd.
.1 It is the case of the complainants that they were lured by employees of OP in buying "Season Type Red' for a studio apartment in Grand Holiday Club, RCI and DAE. They were told that family accommodation would be provided ni five/seven star hotel through DAE by paying only Rs.7,200/- per wek ni Asia Region and Rs.12,500/- in International Hotels. It is further stated by the complainant that they were also shown a draft agreement with an exit clause which stated that member would be refunded within seven
days.
Mka
Scanned with CamScanner
1| Page
COMMISSI
COMMISSI
ISTR

S
7.
5.
Case No.20/16
2. The complainants have paid Rs.85,000/- a
was also issued dated 31.01.2015 howe nd receipt ni this regard
under two separate heads of 'adminis ver, the money was split
deposit'.
trative charges' and initial
3. It is the case of the complainants that from next day complainant
no.1 contacted Grand Holiday Club, Bangalore and DAE representative on 01.02.2015 inquiring the procedure for booking five/seven star hotels but he was told that they were not eligible for accommodation as his two sons were 19 and 12 years old and they
can get accommodation only in certain resorts under DAE and they were also intimated that they cannot get RCI membership.
4. It is further stated that the complainant received the call from one of the representatives of OP on 01.02.2015 who was informed by the complainant that they would be exercising their exit option and seeking refund. Complainant also took up hte mater with Grand Holiday Club, Bangalore and DAE for refund of money and was informed that the refund would be given only by OP. An email was then sent to OP on02.02.2015 withreminder on 11.02.2015rand 23.02.2015. It is further stated that complainant then approached M.r Anuj Pandit, Director of OP and sought refund.
It is the case of the complainant that the OP has a contradictory exit and refund clause as the exit clause states that the agreement is terminable if notice is served within seven days whereas the next clause states that no refund would be made. It is stated that OP indulges in lack of transparency relating to description of policies, charges, membership types, apartment types, season types, eligibility
and age limitations, accommodation offered by Grand Holiday Club and DAE membership in unclear terms in order to exploit consumers.
6. tI si further stated that refusal of OP ot refund immediately after hte payment has been made without offering any service and despite the fact that the refund was sought within two days of signing the agreement amounts ot unfair trade practice of OP and amounts ot
cheating.
OP was initially proceeded exparte but the exparte order thweasOPs.et aside by the Hon ble State Commission and reply was filed by
Nka
2| Page
Scanned with CamScanner

8.
In its reply, OP has taken preliminary objections that the compl misconceived and that the complainant has alleged cheati aint is
forgery which is beyond the purview of the cons ng, fraud,
stated that the complaint is without any cau umer court. It si
that the complainant's enter se of action. It is stated
ed into the agreement dated 31.01.2015
after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement and wish to resile from the agreement without any justifiable reason.
OP has further denied all the averments made by the complainant in their agreement. It is stated that OP was ready to arrange additional bed for the elder son at a nominal cost yet the complainant demanded the refund. DISPUTES REDRE
9. In their rejoinder, complainants have stated that the complaint si maintainable as the complainants have been denied Right ot Information', right ot choose and money wrongly taken without providing any service. It is further stated that the agreement lacks transparency and that the OP has deliberately included dubious and
contradictory clauses in the agreement which amounts to malpractice. tI is further stated that inclusion of exit option i s a deception as money is non-refundable.
10. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. I t is seen complainant has paid Rs.85,000/- which was divided as Rs.73,000/- as initial deposit and Rs.12,000/-
as administrative fee, non-refundable for a membership of ten years, Studio Red Type', occupancy 02/02. Agreement dated 31.01.2015 is attached wherein clause 8 talks of exit option and under clause 9 under the refund clause
"it is understood that if the agreement is cancelled as per the clause 7 above by the purchaser/s, marketers shall not be liable to make any refund to the purchaser/s".
Clause 7 deals with "no escalation clause". It is also seen that complainant has written ot OP on 02.02.2015 itself that hte agreement be terminated, cancelled and refund of Rs.85,000/- be made. The emails are placed on record. Further, an email si found dated 25.02.2015 from OP wherein they have offered to the complainant to upgrade the apartment from studio to one Bedroom
3| Page
Scanned with CamScanner

case 10.20/16
and it was stated that ni case of cancellation,
hte non-refundable.
As per the agreement itself placed on record on which reliance has
been placed by the OP, exit option is made available ot the consumer however, refund clause only refers to refund eb made under Clause 7 and not under Clause 8. In the present case, complainant is exercising exit option under clause 8. This fact coupled with hte fact that the invoice issued by the OP is divided into two parts whereas
Rs.73,000/- is taken as initial deposit and Rs.12,000/- as administrative fee (non-refundable) implies that Rs.73,000/~ is
definitely refundable.
RDISPUTES REDRES
Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the complainants have exercised their option of exit in due time of seven days from the date of the signing of the agreement and are eligible for refund as per the policy of the OP. The Commision directs the OP ot refund Rs.73,000/- with interest 7% per anum from the date of deposit til realisation along with comesayifi Thenooutfoot pdaihteocmarmonhts from the date of the order failing which the interest payable on Rs. 73,000/-
would be 9% per annum till realisation.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned ot the record room. order eb uploaded on the website.
dI (Kiran Kaushal)
(U.K.
Member
Member
Mea
(Monika ASrivastava) President
amount received si
4|Page Scanned with CamScanner

Consumer Forum Order Against Signature Linkers. Pvt Ltd K-28, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
The three directors who hae been cheating people & their malpractices have been exposed in the Consumer Forum this order and earlier orders
(Anuj Pandit, Bhavna Pandit and Vansh Pandit)


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I Udyog Sadan, C-22 &23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-
110016
Case No.20/16
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Narang and Sonia Narang A-172, Preet Vihar
Delhi-110092.
VERSUS
Mr. Anuj Pandit and Bhawna Pandit Chairman &Managing Director
K-28, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar Part-Il New Delhi. '
Coram: 5
Ms. Monika ASrivastava, President: Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
...Complainant
President: Ms. Monika A. Srivastava
Date of Institution:19.01.2016 Date of Order :08.02.2024
Case No.20/16
Complainants have filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.85,000/- with interest @14% per annum and R.s 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. OP -1 are Mr. Anuj Pandit and Bhawna Pandit, Chairman and Managing Director, OP-2 is Signature Linkers Pvt.
Ltd.
.1 It is the case of the complainants that they were lured by employees of OP in buying "Season Type Red' for a studio apartment in Grand Holiday Club, RCI and DAE. They were told that family accommodation would be provided ni five/seven star hotel through DAE by paying only Rs.7,200/- per wek ni Asia Region and Rs.12,500/- in International Hotels. It is further stated by the complainant that they were also shown a draft agreement with an exit clause which stated that member would be refunded within seven
days.
Mka
Scanned with CamScanner
1| Page
COMMISSI
COMMISSI
ISTR

S
7.
5.
Case No.20/16
2. The complainants have paid Rs.85,000/- a
was also issued dated 31.01.2015 howe nd receipt ni this regard
under two separate heads of 'adminis ver, the money was split
deposit'.
trative charges' and initial
3. It is the case of the complainants that from next day complainant
no.1 contacted Grand Holiday Club, Bangalore and DAE representative on 01.02.2015 inquiring the procedure for booking five/seven star hotels but he was told that they were not eligible for accommodation as his two sons were 19 and 12 years old and they
can get accommodation only in certain resorts under DAE and they were also intimated that they cannot get RCI membership.
4. It is further stated that the complainant received the call from one of the representatives of OP on 01.02.2015 who was informed by the complainant that they would be exercising their exit option and seeking refund. Complainant also took up hte mater with Grand Holiday Club, Bangalore and DAE for refund of money and was informed that the refund would be given only by OP. An email was then sent to OP on02.02.2015 withreminder on 11.02.2015rand 23.02.2015. It is further stated that complainant then approached M.r Anuj Pandit, Director of OP and sought refund.
It is the case of the complainant that the OP has a contradictory exit and refund clause as the exit clause states that the agreement is terminable if notice is served within seven days whereas the next clause states that no refund would be made. It is stated that OP indulges in lack of transparency relating to description of policies, charges, membership types, apartment types, season types, eligibility
and age limitations, accommodation offered by Grand Holiday Club and DAE membership in unclear terms in order to exploit consumers.
6. tI si further stated that refusal of OP ot refund immediately after hte payment has been made without offering any service and despite the fact that the refund was sought within two days of signing the agreement amounts ot unfair trade practice of OP and amounts ot
cheating.
OP was initially proceeded exparte but the exparte order thweasOPs.et aside by the Hon ble State Commission and reply was filed by
Nka
2| Page
Scanned with CamScanner

8.
In its reply, OP has taken preliminary objections that the compl misconceived and that the complainant has alleged cheati aint is
forgery which is beyond the purview of the cons ng, fraud,
stated that the complaint is without any cau umer court. It si
that the complainant's enter se of action. It is stated
ed into the agreement dated 31.01.2015
after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement and wish to resile from the agreement without any justifiable reason.
OP has further denied all the averments made by the complainant in their agreement. It is stated that OP was ready to arrange additional bed for the elder son at a nominal cost yet the complainant demanded the refund. DISPUTES REDRE
9. In their rejoinder, complainants have stated that the complaint si maintainable as the complainants have been denied Right ot Information', right ot choose and money wrongly taken without providing any service. It is further stated that the agreement lacks transparency and that the OP has deliberately included dubious and
contradictory clauses in the agreement which amounts to malpractice. tI is further stated that inclusion of exit option i s a deception as money is non-refundable.
10. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. I t is seen complainant has paid Rs.85,000/- which was divided as Rs.73,000/- as initial deposit and Rs.12,000/-
as administrative fee, non-refundable for a membership of ten years, Studio Red Type', occupancy 02/02. Agreement dated 31.01.2015 is attached wherein clause 8 talks of exit option and under clause 9 under the refund clause
"it is understood that if the agreement is cancelled as per the clause 7 above by the purchaser/s, marketers shall not be liable to make any refund to the purchaser/s".
Clause 7 deals with "no escalation clause". It is also seen that complainant has written ot OP on 02.02.2015 itself that hte agreement be terminated, cancelled and refund of Rs.85,000/- be made. The emails are placed on record. Further, an email si found dated 25.02.2015 from OP wherein they have offered to the complainant to upgrade the apartment from studio to one Bedroom
3| Page
Scanned with CamScanner

case 10.20/16
and it was stated that ni case of cancellation,
hte non-refundable.
As per the agreement itself placed on record on which reliance has
been placed by the OP, exit option is made available ot the consumer however, refund clause only refers to refund eb made under Clause 7 and not under Clause 8. In the present case, complainant is exercising exit option under clause 8. This fact coupled with hte fact that the invoice issued by the OP is divided into two parts whereas
Rs.73,000/- is taken as initial deposit and Rs.12,000/- as administrative fee (non-refundable) implies that Rs.73,000/~ is
definitely refundable.
RDISPUTES REDRES
Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the complainants have exercised their option of exit in due time of seven days from the date of the signing of the agreement and are eligible for refund as per the policy of the OP. The Commision directs the OP ot refund Rs.73,000/- with interest 7% per anum from the date of deposit til realisation along with comesayifi Thenooutfoot pdaihteocmarmonhts from the date of the order failing which the interest payable on Rs. 73,000/-
would be 9% per annum till realisation.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned ot the record room. order eb uploaded on the website.
dI (Kiran Kaushal)
(U.K.
Member
Member
Mea
(Monika ASrivastava) President
amount received si
4|Page Scanned with CamScanner

Attached