A no-refund clause cannot let a holiday club keep a member’s Rs 90,000 when he asked to cancel soon after signing up without using any service, the National Consumer Commission has held on the facts of the case.
New Delhi: Dismissing a revision petition by Country Vacations and Country Club (India) Ltd. (now Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd.), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld a Karnataka State Commission order to refund Rs 90,000 to a Bengaluru resident who cancelled his holiday membership soon after signing up, holding the no-refund clause in the agreement one-sided and unfair [Country Vacations & Anr. v. Sangeeth Bhadran].
President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya heard the matter, and Pandya authored the order, which was pronounced on October 30, 2026.
“Patently unfair and unjust”
The NCDRC accepted that the member had not tried to use any service and that there was no evidence the promised facilities were unavailable. It still agreed with the State Commission’s result, “though for different reasons”, focusing on the company’s overall conduct and the nature of the contract.
“The over-all conduct of the petitioner in firstly extracting or obtaining the membership fee by inviting the customer and pitching the benefit, and then declining to refund the same, even when the same is requested within a short and reasonable time and without availing any benefit under the agreement, is patently unfair and unjust.”
The member should have been refunded, perhaps after deducting pro-rata charges for 1.5 months and some reasonable administrative charges or earnest amount, the Commission said. It noted the position “could perhaps have been different” had he used any benefit or otherwise acted on the contract.
“The unfairness of the conduct of the petitioner and the one-sidedness of the ‘no refund’ clause are palpably evident, more so when there is no benefit taken by the complainant and the non-refund would unjustly and disproportionately enrich the petitioner.”
Finding no jurisdictional or other error in the State Commission’s order, the NCDRC dismissed the revision petition.
How the membership was sold
According to the complaint, Sangeeth Bhadran received a call from the company on December 2, 2013, was invited to its office to collect gifts, and signed a Membership Purchase Agreement on the same day, December 7, 2013, paying Rs 90,000. The membership offered a 6-night, 7-day holiday each year for five years and lifetime club membership, with annual maintenance charges payable.
He alleged that after reading the agreement he found its terms at variance with what had been represented to him. On January 28, 2014, he emailed the company seeking cancellation and a refund, and followed up through several emails, calls and visits before sending a legal notice on August 21, 2014. He then filed a complaint before the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Forum.
The company denied any misrepresentation, said he joined voluntarily, had been issued membership cards and gift vouchers, and that the fee was non-refundable under the contract. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on August 2, 2016, finding no proof of deficiency or unfair trade practice. The Karnataka State Commission reversed that on April 16, 2021, ordering a refund of Rs 90,000 with 6% interest from the date of complaint and Rs 5,000 in costs.
The two sides before the NCDRC
The company argued that the State Commission had rewritten the contract, that the member never tried to book a holiday or use the club, that the burden of proving deficiency lay on him and was not discharged, and that he had not paid annual maintenance charges. It relied on SGS India Ltd. v. Dolphin International Ltd. and Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., among others.
The member argued that he was pitched the benefits at a promotional meeting, made to sign the same day and lured with gift vouchers, and that a no-refund clause binding him to lifelong maintenance charges regardless of use was unconscionable. He cited rulings that a contract without a termination clause is not presumed to be perpetual.
What the ruling means for members
Holiday and timeshare memberships are often sold at same-day presentations, with long-term fees and strict no-refund terms. The order makes clear that consumer fora will look beyond the signed contract to how the sale was made, and that a blanket no-refund clause may be struck down as one-sided where a consumer seeks to exit quickly without taking any benefit.
The ruling is fact-specific. The Commission tied its view to the short 1.5-month window, the absence of any use and the risk of unjust enrichment, and suggested that a reasonable deduction for the period and administrative costs may be fair. Members who have used the services or acted on the contract may stand on a different footing.
Case Title: Country Vacations Country Club (India) Ltd. (now Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd.) & Anr. v. Sangeeth Bhadran [Revision Petition No. 259 of 2022]
Bench: Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Date of Order: October 30, 2026 (reserved on July 14, 2026)
Appearances: Advocate Vijay Sharma for the petitioners; Advocates P. Harold and Jaimon Andrews for the respondent