Comments
They are the biggest cheats, , , they keep increasing the yearly MC charges without adding any value to their resort. I regret having bought the time share resort from them as they do not have a professional customer relationship attitude.
Reply
Anyone considering buying into the royal goan need to be very carefull befor commencing with any contract with these people they will happily look you in the face and lie to you knowing once you have bought from them there is nothing you can do, some people who we met had bought a 25 year contract and tried to cancel a few days later were told they could not it seems there is no cooling off period or they were led to believe this
We joined 6 years ago and the maintenance has doubled in the last 4 years, when you are shown a villa at the Haathi Mahal where we bought it was vastly different to the one we actually got when we booked our holiday nothing like what we were shown
Now when you have bought your time share they ask you to upgraded to superior that costs a lot more money and is basically what you were shown when you buy the time share, a lot of people who arrived this year while we were there refused to stay in the villas they were allocated due to the standard of the dwellings
Now this year they are trying to get even more money from members as weeks start saturday to saturday, some of the airlines have changed there days for flying meaning you arrive Goa on the sunday so now if you pay extra money again you can arrive on any day
Every year you are harased by people wanting you to buy more time share or up grades, these villas should be upgraded on a regular basis with what they are charging for maintenance and to what you are shown when you buy, when you buy into royal goan be prepared to be harassed to part with more of your cash, when these people are trying to sell you more time share they are all smiles when they realise they are getting no more cash from you you may as well be one of the floor tiles You have to wonder if royal goan want people to cancel there membership so they can be sold all overagain becouse they are doing a really good job to put there members off
There is a lot of places being built in Goa for the holiday makers and if you look round you will find you can purchase 3 weeks at some very nice places for what the royal goan are charging for 2 weeks time share
We joined 6 years ago and the maintenance has doubled in the last 4 years, when you are shown a villa at the Haathi Mahal where we bought it was vastly different to the one we actually got when we booked our holiday nothing like what we were shown
Now when you have bought your time share they ask you to upgraded to superior that costs a lot more money and is basically what you were shown when you buy the time share, a lot of people who arrived this year while we were there refused to stay in the villas they were allocated due to the standard of the dwellings
Now this year they are trying to get even more money from members as weeks start saturday to saturday, some of the airlines have changed there days for flying meaning you arrive Goa on the sunday so now if you pay extra money again you can arrive on any day
Every year you are harased by people wanting you to buy more time share or up grades, these villas should be upgraded on a regular basis with what they are charging for maintenance and to what you are shown when you buy, when you buy into royal goan be prepared to be harassed to part with more of your cash, when these people are trying to sell you more time share they are all smiles when they realise they are getting no more cash from you you may as well be one of the floor tiles You have to wonder if royal goan want people to cancel there membership so they can be sold all overagain becouse they are doing a really good job to put there members off
There is a lot of places being built in Goa for the holiday makers and if you look round you will find you can purchase 3 weeks at some very nice places for what the royal goan are charging for 2 weeks time share
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 )
Date of Decision: 1st February 2006
Appeal No.FA-1054/2005
(Arising from the order dated[protected] passed by District Forum(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 126/2004)
M/s Life Time Holidays Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Appellants.
Windsor Place, Through
S-347, Panchsheel Park, Mr. Swetank,
Delhi. Advocate.
Versus
Shri Narender Jain & Anr. Respondents
49-A, Rajpur Road,
Delhi.
CORAM :
Justice J.D. Kapoor- President
Mr. Mahesh Chandra- Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
Authorised representative of the appellant offered the respondents life time membership on its resort known as ‘M/s Royal Goan Beach Club for occupancy of a week holidays in a year for life time against payment of Rs. 1, 65, 000/- out of which Rs. 25, 000/- was received in cash and remaining Rs. 1, 40, 000/- was required to be made in six equal monthly instalments. On account of failure of the appellant to make the resort ready for occupation as per agreement and inspite of having received the consideration amount of Rs. 1, 71, 923/-, the District Forum has vide its order dated[protected] given the following directions :-
“1. OPs will refund the amount of Rs. 1, 71, 923/- paid to them by the complainants.
2. OPs will pay Rs. 50, 000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental torture, inconvenience, breach of agreed terms, misrepresentation and unfair trade practice and financial loss on account of paid amount for 9 long years.
3. OPs will pay Rs. 2, 000/- as cost of litigation.”
2. Though preliminary objections as to the complaint being barred by limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction were taken before the District Forum but we have little to add what the District Forum has said while repelling these objections as these objections were well taken care of by the District Forum as the cause of action continued even at the time of filing the complaint.
3. As according to the appellant the resort was very much ready in 1997 and it was on second thought that the respondent withdrew from the membership and asked for the refund of the amount paid by him appellant was not at all guilty for deficiency in service nor was it liable to refund the amounts. In support of this contention the Counsel for the appellant relied upon the Employer’s Registration Form (Exhibit ‘3’), particularly clause 6 thereof which reads as under:-
“6. (a) Year of Registration of the factory/Establishment under the Factories Act/Shops and Establishment Act or any other Act (please give name of relevant Act) SHOPS & ESTABLISHMENT ACT.
(b) Licence No. (Factory)/Certificate No. (Establishment) MARGAO/III7551.
( c ) The date of starting of the factory/Establishment FIRST SALE OF BUSINESS ON 11.1.1997.”
4. The emphasis of the Counsel for the appellant is on sub-clause ( c ) pertaining to the date of starting of the factory/establishment which according to it was 11.1.97.
5. We are afraid this contention does not hold water as the starting of construction of a factory/establishment cannot be by any stretch of imagination assumed as date of completion and therefore the finding of the District Forum on the score that the resort was not ready for occupation in the year 97 needs no interference. Any shortcoming, imperfection or fault in relation to manner of performances of the terms of contract amounts to deficiency in service and in such a case provider of service is to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him.
6. In our view the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is on much higher side as in terms of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act a consumer is entitled for an amount as compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Taking over all view of the matter and retention of aforesaid amount of Rs. 1, 71, 923/- for few years by the appellant we deem that there is no need to issue notice to the respondent as in our view compensation of Rs. 20, 000/- besides cost of litigation of Rs. 2, 000/- would meet the ends of justice.
8. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed off in aforesaid extent.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
10. Announced on the 1st day of February 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor)
President
(Mahesh Chandra)
Member
jj
(Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 )
Date of Decision: 1st February 2006
Appeal No.FA-1054/2005
(Arising from the order dated[protected] passed by District Forum(North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 126/2004)
M/s Life Time Holidays Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Appellants.
Windsor Place, Through
S-347, Panchsheel Park, Mr. Swetank,
Delhi. Advocate.
Versus
Shri Narender Jain & Anr. Respondents
49-A, Rajpur Road,
Delhi.
CORAM :
Justice J.D. Kapoor- President
Mr. Mahesh Chandra- Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
Authorised representative of the appellant offered the respondents life time membership on its resort known as ‘M/s Royal Goan Beach Club for occupancy of a week holidays in a year for life time against payment of Rs. 1, 65, 000/- out of which Rs. 25, 000/- was received in cash and remaining Rs. 1, 40, 000/- was required to be made in six equal monthly instalments. On account of failure of the appellant to make the resort ready for occupation as per agreement and inspite of having received the consideration amount of Rs. 1, 71, 923/-, the District Forum has vide its order dated[protected] given the following directions :-
“1. OPs will refund the amount of Rs. 1, 71, 923/- paid to them by the complainants.
2. OPs will pay Rs. 50, 000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental torture, inconvenience, breach of agreed terms, misrepresentation and unfair trade practice and financial loss on account of paid amount for 9 long years.
3. OPs will pay Rs. 2, 000/- as cost of litigation.”
2. Though preliminary objections as to the complaint being barred by limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction were taken before the District Forum but we have little to add what the District Forum has said while repelling these objections as these objections were well taken care of by the District Forum as the cause of action continued even at the time of filing the complaint.
3. As according to the appellant the resort was very much ready in 1997 and it was on second thought that the respondent withdrew from the membership and asked for the refund of the amount paid by him appellant was not at all guilty for deficiency in service nor was it liable to refund the amounts. In support of this contention the Counsel for the appellant relied upon the Employer’s Registration Form (Exhibit ‘3’), particularly clause 6 thereof which reads as under:-
“6. (a) Year of Registration of the factory/Establishment under the Factories Act/Shops and Establishment Act or any other Act (please give name of relevant Act) SHOPS & ESTABLISHMENT ACT.
(b) Licence No. (Factory)/Certificate No. (Establishment) MARGAO/III7551.
( c ) The date of starting of the factory/Establishment FIRST SALE OF BUSINESS ON 11.1.1997.”
4. The emphasis of the Counsel for the appellant is on sub-clause ( c ) pertaining to the date of starting of the factory/establishment which according to it was 11.1.97.
5. We are afraid this contention does not hold water as the starting of construction of a factory/establishment cannot be by any stretch of imagination assumed as date of completion and therefore the finding of the District Forum on the score that the resort was not ready for occupation in the year 97 needs no interference. Any shortcoming, imperfection or fault in relation to manner of performances of the terms of contract amounts to deficiency in service and in such a case provider of service is to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him.
6. In our view the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is on much higher side as in terms of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act a consumer is entitled for an amount as compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Taking over all view of the matter and retention of aforesaid amount of Rs. 1, 71, 923/- for few years by the appellant we deem that there is no need to issue notice to the respondent as in our view compensation of Rs. 20, 000/- besides cost of litigation of Rs. 2, 000/- would meet the ends of justice.
8. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed off in aforesaid extent.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
10. Announced on the 1st day of February 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor)
President
(Mahesh Chandra)
Member
jj
i havent read it yet
i want to apply for refund
Customer satisfaction rating Customer satisfaction rating is a complex algorithm that helps our users determine how good
a company is at responding and resolving complaints by granting from 1 to 5 stars for each
complaint and then ultimately combining them all for an overall score.
Read more
Read more
65%
Complaints
26
Pending
0
Resolved
17
+91 83 2672 5300
Haathi Mahal, Cavelossim, Mobor, Salcette, Goa Velha, Goa, India - 403731
View all Royal Resorts contact information