Free hotel stays promised, Delhi couple signs Rs 65,000 holiday membership: Court orders relief over fake assurances

AI generated image used for representative purpose

NEW DELHI: A Delhi couple who alleged they were lured into buying a holiday membership after being promised complimentary hotel stays and other vouchers has secured relief from a consumer commission. The commission directed Royalty Holidays International to refund Rs 65,000 along with Rs 30,000 compensation and Rs 11,000 litigation costs.How did the couple end up buying the holiday membership?According to the commission order, the couple received calls in June 2025 informing them that they had been shortlisted for complimentary benefits, including a three-night, four-day holiday stay, two PVR movie tickets and a salon voucher. They were asked to attend a promotional event at Hyatt Centric Hotel in Janakpuri, Delhi.The couple alleged that instead of giving them the promised vouchers, representatives persuaded them to buy a holiday membership by offering attractive packages and stays at luxury hotels and resorts.The initial membership cost was Rs 92,000 for a six-night, seven day stay over five years. The couple initially declined, but later agreed to a revised plan costing Rs 72,000, including interest. They paid Rs 61,000 through a two year EMI scheme using a credit card. The commission later found that payment of Rs 65,000 stood proved from the documents on record.The couple later alleged that they were made to sign the agreement in haste and that its terms were different from the assurances made during the promotional meeting.They also alleged that they had been told the annual maintenance charge would remain fixed at Rs 8,500 and that they would not have to pay it if they did not use the facilities. But the membership terms provided that the annual maintenance charge could be revised and had to be paid every year.Why did the couple seek cancellation?After receiving the membership documents, the couple emailed the company on June 19, 2025, seeking cancellation and a refund of the amount paid. They also delivered a letter to the company’s office the next day.The couple said they later discovered that the membership offered only a limited selection of destinations and accommodations, contrary to the assurances that they could book stays at any four-star or five-star hotel or resort across India.The commission noted that the company did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte. The couple’s allegations therefore remained unrebutted.The commission examined the cancellation clause in the membership agreement, which provided for deductions ranging from 30 percent to 100 percent depending on how soon cancellation was sought.What did the consumer commission find?The bench of President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and member Harpreet Kaur Charya found that the couple had clearly communicated their decision to cancel the membership shortly after receiving the welcome letter.It noted that their email explained that the agreement had been signed under the circumstances alleged by them and that they wanted to withdraw from it.The commission also examined the difference between the company’s assurances about the annual maintenance charge and the written terms of the membership.“The OP, by representing to the Complainants that a fixed Annual Maintenance Charge (AMC) of Rs.8,500/- would remain payable throughout the tenure of the membership, induced them to enter into the agreement while having no intention of honouring such representation,” the commission said.The commission held that the representation about the fixed maintenance charge, followed by the refusal to refund the amount, amounted to both an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.“Thus, the OP’s act of representing that the AMC would remain fixed at Rs.8,500/- for the entire tenure of the membership, solely to induce the Complainants to execute the agreement, and thereafter failing to honour the said representation and refusing to refund the amounts paid by the Complainants, constitutes both an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” it further added.The commission then said the couple had suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment and that the company had been using their money.What did the consumer commission order?The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North District, Delhi, directed Royalty Holidays International to:

The order therefore requires the company to return the amount paid by the couple, along with interest and additional compensation and litigation costs.