Country Club

adminadmin Administrator
edited September 2014 in Tour and Travels
Date of Filing:24.12.2008
Date of Order : 11.03.2009
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 11th DAY OF MARCH 2009
PRESENT
Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President
Smt.C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member


COMPLAINT NO. 2798 OF 2008

Manish,
#E 101, Coronet Greens Apartment,
Bellandur Gate, Sarjapura Road,
Bangalore – 560 102.
…. Complainant.
V/s

Y.Rajeev Reddy,
Chairman and Managing Director,
Country Club(India) Limited,
“Amrutha Castle”, 5-9-16,
Saifabad, OPP.Secretariat,
Hyderabad.

Also at:
Country Club(India) Limited,
No.273, 1st Main Road, Defense
Colony, HAL 2nd Stage, B,lore-38
…. Opposite Party
-: ORDER:-
This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to return the Membership Fee of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest thereon and to pay compensation for the trip in terms of the charges for three days and two nights accommodation along with food and transportation charges.
2. The case of the complainant is as under:-
The complainant paid Rs.35,000/- to the Opposite Party Country Club towards the Gold Membership BLGCS-165. In December 2006, Mr.K.Sugumar – the representative of the Opposite Party approached him for upgradation of the Gold Membership to Mr.Coll Membership on payment of difference amount of Rs.80,000/-. He promised to allot three sites each bearing 1633 Square Feet free of cost at Coconut Groove near Tumkur and also gave the site numbers as 40, 41 & 42 in Phase No-14 to be developed by the end of 2008 and that the complainant would be entitled for three days and two nights complementary stay at Country Club-de Goa with two way air ticket for a couple. With regard to the offers, Mr.Sugumar gave the letter dated:29.12.2006 and accordingly he paid Rs.70,000/- on 29.12.2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 24.03.2007 and he received the membership card on 30th March 2007. Mr.Sugumar confirmed that the procedure of the land allotment had started and he will be getting allotment letter soon, but the same has not come to reality till now. He requested the Opposite Party to book free holiday trip to Goa on 10.11.2007 and till the last moment he was given assurance that the booking in the flight and Country Club de-Goa has been confirmed. On the evening of 09.11.2007 he received flight ticket, but the booking was not done as the club was already full. Somehow the complainant went to Goa and booked his own accommodation, Food and Transportation. When informed Mr.Sugumar again falsely assured that he will rectify the mistake by providing a return air fare along with the booking at the club. Thereafter Mr.Sugumar never informed about the change of his contact details. On 31.05.2008 he sent a mail to Customer Care and got the contact number of Mr.Sugumar. But the calls to that number were never picked-up. On 04.09.2008 he met Mr.Nikhil, Manager Operations, Country Club, Sarjapura Road and he asked him to send him the mail with all the details so that he can try to help him. Accordingly he sent all the details on 06.09.2008. Thereafter he was asked to contact Mr.Austin, General Manager, Country Club, who assured to inform the concerned Authority. But so far nothing is done. Hence, the complaint.
3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-
The complaint is not maintainable as the relief sought for is not amenable. At no point of time, the Opposite Party have rendered deficiency in service and as such the question of claiming refund of the Membership Fee does not arise. The complainant himself upgraded his membership from Gold Crown Premium Super to Mr.Cool Card membership and paid Rs.70,000/- on 29.12.2006 and Rs.10,000/- on 24.03.2007. Thus, he got the membership upgraded, received the permanent membership card and utilized the club facilities. Instructions were given to the complainant that if he wanted to utilize the complementary trip he has to inform in writing 30 days in advance to book available rooms. One side air ticket was taken care by the Opposite Parties as desired by the complainant. After utilizing the same the complainant has filed the complaint in order to make money and harass the Opposite Parties. No promises were made for allotment of three sites. Only one site can be allotted for the membership of the complainant. The complainant has to pay Rs.15,000/- towards registration and annual administration charges. In spite of information, the complainant refused to make payment of the said amount. They are ready to allot the site subject to the complainant making payment of Rs.15,000/- towards registration and annual administration charges. The complaint filed is without sufficient cause or reason and the entire complaint has been foisted to gain wrongful. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced copies of documents. In spite of sufficient time granted, the Opposite Party failed to adduce its evidence. When the matter came up for arguments, the Opposite Party filed an application on 26.02.2009 seeking permission to lead evidence. The said application was allowed imposing cost of Rs.200/- and the case was adjourned to 27.02.2009 for payment of cost and to lead evidence. But on 27.02.2009, the Opposite Party and its counsel remained absent and did not pay cost imposed nor adduce evidence. We have heard the arguments of the complainant.
5. The points for consideration:-
1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
6.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Our findings are:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
For the following:-
-:REASONS:-
7. The contention of the complainant that on getting his membership upgraded by paying Rs.80,000/- , he was assured allotment of three sites bearing No.40, 41, & 42 in Phase-14 and that he is entitled to complementarystay at Goa also finds support from the letter dated:29.12.2006 given by Mr.K.Sugumar – the Representative of the Opposite Party. The offers made to the complainant in this letter are as under:-
  • This is a life membership which is transferable and saleable,

  • You will become a direct member of all our clubs in India including our resorts Bushbetta in Bandipur and Club de Goa in Goa.

  • You will also be entitled to access our affiliations across India and Abroad,

  • You will also be entitled for three days and two nights complementary stay at Country Club-de Goa with Two way air ticket for couple,

  • You will also be entitled for one week complementary stay at RGBC, Goa,

  • You will be allotted three sites each 1633 sq ft free of cost at Coconut Groove, near Tumkur, and

  • You will be allotted three sites no-40, 41 & 42 in Phase No.14.

Therefore, it is clear from this letter that while getting the membership of the complainant upgraded, the Opposite Parties assured allotment of three sites each measuring 1633 Sq.Feet. free of cost on Coconut Groove, Near Tumkur and also disclosed the sites as site Nos.40 , 41 & 42 in Phase No.14 and also assured complementary stay for three days and two nights at Country Club de-Goa with two way air ticket for a couple besides other assurances. After the complainant made payment of Rs.70,000/- on 29.12.2006, the Opposite Party sent the letter dated:06.02.2007 informing that the allotment of complementary plot at Coconut Groove will be allotted only on payment of full membership fees towards Mr.Cool Card and he has to remit Rs.15,000/- within 30 days of plot allotment towards registration and other charges. By the letter dated:28.03.2007, the Opposite Party sent the membership Card to the complainant probably after he made payment of the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. Though in the version it is stated that since the complainant failed to make payment of Rs.15,000/- towards registration and other expenses the allotment of site is not made, it is not the case of the Opposite Party that in spite of the allotment of the plot, the complainant failed to make payment of Rs.15,000/-. As per the information in the letter dated:06.02.2007, the complainant was required to make payment of Rs.15,000/- within 30 days after the allotment of the plot. Therefore when nothing is placed on record to show that in fact the plot has been allotted in favour of the complainant, there is no substance in the contention of the Opposite Party that because of nonpayment of Rs.15,000/- the plot is not allotted. Even the contention of the Opposite Party in the version is contrary to the assurance given by its representative in the letter dated:29.12.2006, because in this letter the representative of the Opposite Party assured allotment of three sites each measuring 1633 Sq.Ft., whereas in the version the Opposite Party has contended that the complainant is entitled to allotment of only one site. This discloses the way in which the Opposite Party makes false promises to get the general public enrolled as the members of the club. In spite of payment of Rs.80,000/- for upgrading the membership, the Opposite Party has not allotted any sites so far and this act clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. Admittedly the complainant had become Gold member by making Rs.35,000/- before he got the membership upgraded. He got the membership upgraded only on the assurance of allotment of three sites free of cost. When the Opposite Party failed to allot the sites as promised, the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the sum of Rs.80,000/- paid for upgradation of the membership. However, the complainant is not entitled to claim refund of Rs.35,000/- towards Gold membership. The other grievances of the complainant with regard to the complementary stay at Goa provided by the Opposite Parties. The complainant admits that the Opposite Party provided air ticket to Goa. But he has contended that the Opposite Party had not made booking of the accommodation. According to Opposite Party the complainant was required to make request 30 days in advance. In the complaint, the complainant has not disclosed as to when he requested the Opposite Party for complementary stay at Goa. If the request was not made 30 days in advance for booking the accommodation, the complainant cannot blame the Opposite Party. Thus, from the material on record we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part the Opposite Party so far as the complementary stay is concerned. Therefore we hold that the complainant is entitled to seek only refund of Rs.80,000/- from the Opposite Party. In the complainant, the complainant has also made certain statements with regard to the membership of his aunt. If at all the Aunt of the complainant is interested to get back the amount paid for the membership, she is at liberty to file a separate complaint. That matter has nothing to do with the claim of the complainant and therefore the same is not dealt with in this matter. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to claim refund of Rs.80,000/- from the Opposite Party and accordingly we pass the following:-
-:ORDER:-
  • The complaint is ALLOWED IN PART.
  • The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.80,000/- paid by the complainant towards upgradation of the membership with interest thereon at 10% Per Annum from March-2007 till the date of payment. The Opposite Party shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of order.
  • Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs immediately.
  • Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th DAY OF MARCH 2009.

Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
«13

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009

    III ADDL,DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

    No.8,Sahakara Bhavan,Cunningham Road,Bangalore-560 052.

    consumer case(CC) No. Cc/2678/2008

    Mr. Prashanth Kumar Bekal.
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    Managing Director, The Country Club.
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:
    1. Dr. Subhashini
    2. H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA
    3. N. SRIVATHSA KEDILAYA


    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
    ORDER

    1 . (a) Believing the assurance of the Opposite Party-Club, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- by way of subscription to membership. The Opposite Party-Club promised free air tickets and holiday for two persons in Goa. Further, the Opposite Party-Club promised a plot measuring 1089 sq.ft. in their Vedic Country Spa near Bangalore, International Airport. Allured by those promises, the Complainant so became a member of that Club parting with a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. To the misfortune of the Complainant, the Opposite Party-Club did not keep up their promise. They neither provided that plot, nor arranged for Air tickets and holidays in Goa.

    (b) The membership of the Complainant is styled as COUNTRY CLUB MR. COOL CARD. It was so provided on the approach of the Complainant on 17/12/2007. But on account of the failure of the Opposite Party–Club to provide those items as promised, the Complainant was put to mental agony, sufferance and loss. Moreover, the conduct of the Opposite Party-Club amounts to cheating and also Unfair Trade Practice.

    (c) In the circumstances, this Complaint is necessitated to direct the Opposite Party-Club to refund that amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and compensate the Complainant in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and award cost of the litigation in a sum of Rs.20,000/-. This Complaint is filed on 10/11/2008.

    (d) Along with the Complaint, the Complainant has made available xerox copies of three documents with a list. The First Document is, a copy of the Receipt bearing No.61835 dt.22/12/2007 issued by the Opposite Party-Club to the Complainant for having received a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards that membership fee. The Second Document is also a Receipt dt.31/12/2007 bearing No.222917 issued by the Opposite Party for having received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Complainant. The Membership Number of the Complainant is shown as Cool-778 in that receipt. The Third Document is, a copy of the Notice dt.11/11/2008 issued by the National Consumer Rights protection Counsel Thane (West, Maharashtra India) to the Opposite Party-Club. It refers to the grievance of the Complainant seeking refund of the money to the Complainant along with compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.


    2 (a). On admission of the Complaint, the Opposite Party-Club was called upon to produce their Version of the case. Accordingly, it was made available on 28/01/2009 through their Counsel. The substance of that Version is as hereunder.

    (b) This Complaint is neither maintainable at law, nor on facts of the case. The Opposite Party-Club never remained deficient in rendering services to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is a club registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The allegation that the Complainant was allured by the advertisement of the Opposite Party and became a member of the Opposite Party-Club is not correct. On the other hand, the Complainant after having understood the position, had volunteered to become a member of the Opposite Party-Club. It is true, the Opposite Party-Club had given the Complainant many offers. However, as far as the availment of holidays is concerned, it was for the Complainant-Member to fix the date and the Complainant did not make available the same. Therefore, the Opposite Party could not respond. The Opposite Party–Club is ready even today to provide service to the Complainant provided he fixes up the date of stay. As far as the allotment of plot is concerned, it was for the Complainant to comply the requirement of that Scheme by paying necessary fees such as Registration Fee, Stamp Duty etc.
    The Complainant did not comply with those requirements. That apart, it is not as if the Complainant did not avail any services from the Opposite Party-Club. He has utilized the facilities of the Opposite Party-Club and he has been benefited by the Opposite Party-Club. In the circumstances, the allegations made against the Opposite Party-Club by the Complainant are untenable. Accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this proceeding against the Opposite Party-Club. Hence, this Complaint has to be dismissed with cost of the Opposite Party-Club.


    3. In the circumstances, the parties were called upon to produce evidence in support of their respective case. Accordingly, the Complainant has chosen to produce an affidavit by way of rejoinder on 03/02/2009. Along with that affidavit evidence, he has produced a xerox copy of a paper cutting touching the Opposite Party-Club. The Opposite Party-Club did not make available their evidence as such though opportunity was given. Ultimately, this forum heard on merits. 4. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision in this Proceeding and they are;

    (i) Whether the Complainant has become successful in establishing the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party-Club?
    (ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief against the Opposite Party-Club?
    (iii) What Order? 5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder: i) Yes ii) Yes iii) As per the operative portion of the Order here- below.

    6. We shall strengthen our findings on the following:



    R E A S O N S


    POINT NO.1 (a):- The fact that the Complainant became a member of the Opposite Party-Club is not in dispute here. According to the Complainant, he was allured by the advertisements of the Opposite Party-Club and that with a fond hope that he would be benefited from the promises and assurance so offered, he became a member of the Opposite Party-Club. However, the Opposite Party-Club has tried to contend that there was no persuasion whatsoever by them to the Complainant to become a member and that the membership was a voluntarily act of the Complainant. Even then, under normal circumstances, no person would become a member of any Club for that matter by parting such a huge amount of Rs.1,25,000/- unless there is some incentive. In the matter in hand, as admitted by the Opposite Party-Club and also as revealed through the documentary evidence in the form of receipts, the Complainant has parted with a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the Opposite Party-Club and became a member.

    (b) Now coming to the promises, Ofcourse, there is no specific documentary evidence regarding the promises referred to by the Complainant. In the normal circumstances, the Complainant could have made available the brochure or any such literature touching the Opposite Party-Club. Even then, from the admission of the Opposite Party-Club in their Version, there is reason to hold that infact the Opposite Party-Club had so promised to the Complainant. In their Version, the Opposite Party-Club have admitted that they have given so many offers to the Complainant under the Scheme to which he became a member and that the Complainant failed to avail the same. That recital is found in Para-5 of the Version. Similarly in Para-7 of the Version, we find a recital that it was for the Complainant to pay the Stamp Duty and Registration charges further sale of the site agreed to be provided to him. It is further recited in Para-6 of the Version that the Complainant did not come forward providing the date and venue of the package tour. Wherefore form the above recital, it is very much clear that the Opposite Party-Club had agreed to provide the package tour and also a plot to the Complainant for having become a membership under that particular Scheme known as Mr.Cool Membership. Further in Para-9 of the Version, the Opposite Party –Club had recited that the Complainant infact had utilized the facilities and the complimentary benefits to the best of his advantage and having utilized the same, he ought not to have alleged something else against the Opposite Party-Club.


    (c) First of all, there is no proof by the Opposite Party-Club to probabilise that the Complainant had infact availed or utilized the facilities of the Opposite Party-Club after he became a member of the same at any point of time. Secondly, the question of providing Stamp Duty and Registration Chares arises only when a definite plot is made available by the Opposite Party-Club. Nodoubt, they contended that the Complainant did not come forward to get the sale deed executed in respect of the agreed plot. The question is, what exactly and where exactly the agreed plot is situate?. Any how, it cannot be in the air. Then, where is it located?. Why the Opposite Party-Club failed to enlighten this Forum regarding that aspect if really they were ready to provide the agreed plot to the Complainant. It cannot be as if there can be no documentary proof with the Opposite Party-Club in that regard. Wherefore, the non-production of the same would certainly strengthen the alleged grievance of the Complainant. Further, if really the Complainant had availed the tour package facility at any point of time, certainly there could have been documentary proof in that regard with the Opposite Party-Club. Secondly, it cannot be as if the same can be availed without any proof. Wherefore, the above admissions and the circumstances would clearly go to show that the Opposite Party-Club as Service-Provider, failed to keep-up their promises. When that is so, there is force in the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party-Club remained deficient in rendering services to him within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, this point is answered.


    7. POINT NO.2:- It is pertinent to note that having parted with such a huge amount in the month of December 2007 itself, the Opposite Party-Club without materializing any of the assurance to the Complainant, made the Complainant to suffer mentally and financially. Wherefore in the circumstances, the Complainant has chosen to seek refund of that membership fee and compensate him for the sufferance and loss to which he was put to along with cost of the litigation. There is justification in the above Claim though not to the extent claimed by the Complainant, the Complainant is very much entitled to be compensated reasonably. In the fitness of things, we deem it proper to award interest on the said amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to be refunded to the Complainant at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of payment, till refund. Award of interest would certainly mitigate the hardship of the Complainant to some extent. Even then, it cannot be the sole relief. A reasonable amount by way of cost and compensation need be provided. In addition to the same, it has to be seen that it is not as if the Complainant rushed to this Forum in hot haste. On the other hand, before passing a legal notice to the Opposite Party-Club, he had corresponded. If really the contention of the Complainant are not true to facts, the Opposite Party-Club could have replied to those letters without loss of time. Further, he could have responded to the legal notice caused by the Complainant’s Counsel. On the other hand, they have made the Complainant to knock the doors of this Forum. Wherefore, a reasonable amount need be granted to the Complainant in addition to the above relief and according to us, if a sum of Rs.10,000/- is fixed ends of justice would meet. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Complainant.

    8. POINT NO.3:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following:


    O R D E R The Opposite Party-Club shall refund Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand) to the Complainant along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment, till refund. In addition to the same, the Opposite Party-Club shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the Complainant by way of cost and compensation. The Opposite Party-Club is granted 30 days from this date to comply this Order and report compliance.



  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Complaint filed on: 02/12/2008
    Notice Served on Op: 29/01/2009


    BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
    [FONT=&quot]CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]URBAN DISTRICT[/FONT][FONT=&quot] NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]CUNNINGHAM ROAD[/FONT][FONT=&quot], BANGALORE[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – 560 052[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]COMPLAINT NO:2615/08[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]DATED THIS THE 30th MARCH 2009[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    PRESENT
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    SRI. GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
    SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER



    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]N. Mahesh Kumar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] S/o. Dr. P. Nandagopal[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Hindu, Major[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] R/by his father[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Dr. Nandagopal, No.266[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 3rd Cross, 1st Floor[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] K.E.B. Colony[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Ashwathnagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 094[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

    /vs/




    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. The Country Club (India) Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.675, 9th A Main, 1st Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Indiranagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of Rs.1,18,666/- with interest, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, cost and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the Op induced the complainant to become a member of its club at Bangalore and for this purpose the Op assured the complainant that the club will give complimentary free site etc., The complainant on the assurance of the Op become the member by paying Rs.1,18,666/- being the full membership fee and the complainant has been assigned membership No.COOL.CG 4248. In one correspondence the OP has assured that a complimentary free plot at COCONUT GROOVE at Sira Tumkur District would be allotted on payment of full membership fee towards the Cool Card. The complainant remitted full amount and requested the OP to make allotment of complimentary free site/plot at Coconut Groove as assured by them. Instead of allotting the complimentary plot, the Op started dodging the issue by not giving proper reply when contacted. Very recently when the complainant contacted the OP regarding the allotment of the plot, the Op assured that they would be allot plot in AP bordering at Bagepally since there was a bar to register the Revenue lands in Karnataka and hence complimentary plot at Coconut Groove at Sira could not be materialized. The OP neither indicated the site No. location, extent etc., to be allotted to the complainant a site in AP bordering at Bagepally nor gave good response to the complainant in this respect. For the best reasons best known to the OP, The Op did not keep up their assurances and promises made to the complainant even though the Op received full membership fee and issued official receipts for the same. The complainant is very much hopeful that the OP would allot complimentary free site/plot as assured by the OP.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant at last requested the OP to return the membership fee paid to the Op for which the Op kept silent. The OP neither taken any action to allot complimentary free site/plot to the complainant nor refund the amount paid to them. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the OP on 10th August, 2008 which the OP received the same and after receiving the notice, the OP contacted the complainant through phone once again assuring to allot a plot and requested not to take any legal action. Till today the OP neither allotted the site to the complainant nor return the amount and kept silent. In a letter dated 16/10/2006, the OP assured to issue allotment letter and upon receipt of the same, the complainant has to pay Rs.15,000/- and add towards other charges etc., But till today no allotment was made and the amount of the complainant unreasonably retained by the Op for which Op is liable to pay the reasonable interest on the said amount received by them. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments and counsel of complainant submitted written arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] It is an admitted fact that the Op has received an amount of Rs.1,18,666/- from the complainant. According to learned counsel for Op, the complainant has not paid the registration charges and other miscellaneous charges to register the site and even this date Op is prepared to execute the sale deed in respect of complementary site. Except taking the contention, the Op has not produced any documents to show that it has formed the layout. Op has not provided any benefits to the complainant as club member after collecting the amount. Several efforts have been made by the complainant to get the benefits and for the allotment of the site. But after collecting the amount the Op never bothered to hear the grievances of the complainant. When the Op ha not complied with the terms and conditions it is the bounden duty to refund the amount received from the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Accordingly, we pass the following order[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,18,666/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). And this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Complaint filed on: 03/12/2008
    Notice Served on Ops: 18/12/2008


    BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
    [FONT=&quot]CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]URBAN DISTRICT[/FONT][FONT=&quot] NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]CUNNINGHAM ROAD[/FONT][FONT=&quot], BANGALORE[/FONT][FONT=&quot] – 560 052[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]COMPLAINT NO:2630/08[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]DATED THIS THE 30th MARCH 2009[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    PRESENT
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    SRI. GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
    SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER

    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]B.S. Gopalan and[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Mrs. B.S. Nagamani[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.49, 6th Main Road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 5th Block, Jayanagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 041[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    /vs/




    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Parties:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sri. Y. Rajeev Reddy[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Chairman & Managing Director[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Country Club (India) Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]N0.675, 9th ‘A’ Main[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Indiranagar 1st Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Bangalore- 560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Amrutha Estates[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]A division of Country Club[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]No.478, Maha Padma[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]1st Main, 1st Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Indiranagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Bangalore- 560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for refund of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the complainant aged about 73 years and a member of the country club of India which has the office at No.675, 9th A Main, Indiranagar 1st Stage, Bangalore-560 038, since 97. During December 2006, one of their representative came to his house, and explained that they are developing a layout called “Coconut Grove”, on Bangalore-Pune road and beyond Tumkur, and if as a member introduces another member and by paying Rs.1,15,000/-. He would get a complimentary site and the new member also would get one site in the newly developing coconut grove. If he introduces his wife as a new member, also they would be given a ‘Cool Card’ of the country club which facilities use of their different clubs. He showed on his laptop, some work going on and convinced them, that the layout was getting ready and would be registered within 2 months, and they have to pay immediately Rs.1,15,000/- and further Rs.35,000/- for the maintenance and registration and stamp duty, for completing the deal and for handing over the sites. It was also told that there is an offer to go and stay in Goa at their Hotel and an air Ticket for them. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complainants paid the entire amount of Rs.1,15,000/- on credit cards for getting the complimentary sites in his name and in his wife’s name. He got duly signed receipt from Amrutha Estates, a division of the Country club of India, who have a registered office at 8-2-703, Amrutha valley, Road-12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034, and having a branch office in Bangalore. Complainants got allotment letters giving sites No.47 (Phase XV) for his wife, Mrs. B.S. Nagamani. And site No.48 (Phase XV) on his name. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Later they were asked pay Rs.15,000/- for site No.47 and Rs.20,000/- for his site of No.48 for maintenance and stamp duty and Registration of sites. These were also promptly paid through cheques dated 29th December 2006 and got the receipts from the Amrutha Estate Office. They got the ‘Coll Cards’ also in each of their names. As they were not keen to utilize the club facilities, as they were already members, no interest was paid towards its use. Since they did not get the sites registered, for many months, they approached their office many times in person, but the authorities were only telling that it would take some more time. This continued without any result continuously. In this connection, they have written two letters dated 24th September 2008 and dated 15th October 2008, for which there was no reply. Thus the club has been holding our money of Rs.1,50,000/- for about the last two years. Hence the complainants approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Ops appeared, filed their version and also gave evidences by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] It is an admitted fact that the Ops have received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainants. According to learned counsel for Ops, the complainants have not paid the registration charges and other miscellaneous charges to register the site and even this date Ops are prepared to execute the sale deed in respect of complementary site. Except taking the contention, the Ops have not produced any documents to show that it has formed the layout. Ops have not provided any benefits to the complainant as club member after collecting the amount. Several efforts have been made by the complainants to get the benefits and for the allotment of the site. But after collecting the amount the Ops never bothered to hear the grievances of the complainants. When the Ops have not complied with the terms and conditions it is their bounden duty to refund the amount received from the complainants. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to the complainants with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). And this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sri. Venkoba Rao[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Aged 44 years[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] S/o. Sri. Late Shama Rao[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Residing at No.2002, ‘B’ Block[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Gowri Apartment[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] New BEL Road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 2nd Stage, Behind Kanti Sweet Shop[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 054[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

    /vs/



    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Indiranagar, 1st Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] R/by its Managing Director[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest, compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs with costs and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the complainant became a member of the Op company and paid membership fee of Rs.1,25,000/- i.e a sum of Rs.90,000/- vide receipt No.10940 and Rs.35,000/- vide Receipt No.51383, both dated 05/07/2007 issued by the Op company. The OP company has accepted the membership of the complainant and issued Cool Privilege Card bearing No.Cool.CG.449-A to the complainant. But the complainant has not utilized any of the privileges, services or facilities under the above said membership or the Cool Card issued by the OP company. The complainant is not interested to continue the membership with the OP company and hence he approached the Op company and requested to cancel his membership and to refund the membership fee of Rs.1,25,000/- paid by him. In spite of repeated requests and demands the Op has failed to refund the membership fee amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid by the complainant. The Op is withholding the membership fee amount of Rs.1,25,000/- which the complainant has paid our of his hard earnings and savings.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant caused legal notice dated 26/07/2008 to the Op company and called upon the Op company. The Op company has received and acknowledged the registered notice, but so far not replied and also not complied with the demands made in the legal notice. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Learned counsel for complainant submitted written arguments. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for OP and permitted to submit written arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The main contention of the learned counsel for Op that the membership fee is not refundable and complainant was offered to utilize the benefits of the club but the complainant himself not utilize the offer and it is not the mistake of the OP and also can not be called as deficiency in service. The Op has not produced any documents to show that it has offered benefits to the complainant when the Op has not provided any benefits, the complainant was forced to withdraw his membership and requested the OP for the refund of the amount. When the Op has not provided the facilities as per the agreement, it is the bounden duty of the OP to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards the costs of this litigation and all these amounts are to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]R. Krishnakumar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Residing at[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] B 155 Block No.8[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] CPWD Quarters[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Domlur Layout[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 071[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

    /vs/



    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. The Country Club (India) Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Member Relation Division[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.847/1 (Adjacent to Post Office)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for refund of Rs.1,18,667/- with interest, cost and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the Op had contacted the complainant over the phone and induced the complainant to join and have a membership in their new scheme by becoming a member of Mr. Cool believing their words the complainant become the member of the club and since the country club was known for its familiarity and anticipating that the club would abide by their versions the Op convinced this complainant to make him one the members. The complainant was given a privilege card and was told to become a member by nature of their letter dated 01/10/2006 and prior to the said letter the complainant was told to pay a sum of Rs.3,667/- vide bearing No.20071051650, dated 01/10/2007. The Op promised a site of 1089 sq. ft. at Country Club Coconut Groove. The OP collected a sum of Rs.25,000/- through their executive Sri. Sai Sowmya Mukherjee on 07/10/2006 on A/C of initial payment vide Receipt No.19905. The Op also collected Rs.90,000/- from this complainant towards final payment by way of an A/c payee cheque drawn on ICICI Bank D.D. No.195421 vide receipt dated 12/10/2006.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The Op once again wrote to this complainant on 14/10/2006, congratulating him on becoming the Mr. Cool Privilege card member and informed him to deposit Rs.15,000/- within 30 days for registration of the plot. The OP wrote to him on 25/12/2007 asking him pay a further sum of Rs.3,667/-. The complaints left with no other option issued a legal notice to the Op through his counsel vide reference No. F1/BA/730/2008, Dated 10/09/2008, calling upon the OP return the sum of Rs.1,18,667/- to gather with interest 18% P.A. But the Op even after having acknowledged the legal notice on 15/09/2008, has failed to make good the payment. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] It is an admitted fact that the Op has received an amount of Rs.1,18,667/- from the complainant. According to learned counsel for Op, the complainant has not paid the registration charges and other miscellaneous charges to register the site and even this date Op is prepared to execute the sale deed in respect of complementary site. Except taking the contention, the Op has not produced any documents to show that it has formed the layout. Op has not provided any benefits to the complainant as club member after collecting the amount. Several efforts have been made by the complainant to get the benefits and for the allotment of the site. But after collecting the amount the Op never bothered to hear the grievances of the complainant. When the Op ha not complied with the terms and conditions it is the bounden duty to refund the amount received from the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,18,667/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). And this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sri. B.G. Ganesh[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] S/o. Sri. B. Gopala Rao[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Aged about 55 years[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Residing at No.14, Kamala Krupa[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 11th Main, 6th Cross[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Srinivasa Layout[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Hongasandra, Begur[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 068[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]


    /vs/





    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. Country Club (I) Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.14/4, 14th Main[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] BTM 2nd Stage Extension[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Mico Layout, Bangalore-560 076[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] R/by its Branch Manager[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest, costs and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the Op had represented to the complainant through its executive Sri. Karunakaran that the complainant could become a cool member of the Op by paying a sum of Rs.95,000/- and a site measuring 1,089 Sq. ft would be allotted an east facing site in Phase I of Country Club Coconut Groove Banyan Tree in Bagepalli, Andhra Pradesh and that the complainant was not required to pay any consideration for the said site. The OP had also represented to the complainant that under the said scheme for every additional reference provided the complainant would be gifted with another site besides other compliments and that the complainant was not required to pay any consideration for the said site also. As per the assurances of the Op the complainant has paid to the Op a sum of Rs.95,000/- and the Op has issued receipts.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] After receipt of the amounts, the OP had written a letter dated 31/08/2007 addressed to the complainant that the Op had become a life member of the OP and have been allotted sites No.428/5 and 428/6 each measuring 1,089 sq. ft. facing east would be allotted in Phase I at Country Club Coconut Groove Banyan Tree in Bagepalli, Andhra Pradesh. The OP has not given the sites to the complainant as assured by the OP. The complainant has sent a letter on 14/08/2008 calling upon the Op to refund the amount of Rs.95,000/- with interest thereon. In spite of service of the said letter, the Op did not even bother to comply with the demand made in the said letter. The complainant had also approached its Customer Care Centre of the OP at Indiranagar, Bangalore for service of the above said letter dated 14/08/2008. But, the Customer Care Centre of the OP did not even bother to receive the said letter. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Notice was sent to the Op under RPAD for its version and the same was served on it. On the date of version neither Op appeared nor filed its version and no one represented the OP. Hence Op placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of complainant.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant specifically on oath stated about the payment of amount and documents produced by the complainant also completely corroborates the payment of amount. When the OP has agreed to provide all facilities with allotment of site if the complainant becomes a member, it is the bounden duty of the OP to provide all facilities and to allot the site as agreed. But after the receipt of the amount, the Op neither provided the facilities nor allotted the site. Even the acquisition of the land for formation of site is also not approved by the Op. When the OP has failed to abide by the condition given at the time of receiving the amount it is the bounden duty of the OP to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] These facts have not been specifically denied by the Op. Even though the notice was served on it, it remained absent and failed to submit its statement of objection to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In the absence of specific denial by the Op, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the observation made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization including the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sri. Ramachandra Bistu Bhat[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] S/o. Bistu Bhat[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Aged about 38 years[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.1, First Floor[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Kathriguppe Link Road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 5th Cross, New Kempegowda[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Layout, BSK III Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 085[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

    /vs/




    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. Country Club (India)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Pvt. Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.1081, 12th Main[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] (Next to Corporation Bank)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] HAL 2nd Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] R/by its Chairman and [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Managing Director[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest, costs and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the representatives of the Op approached the complainant for the life membership of the country club run by the OP. After paying amount of Rs.1,25,000/- the complainant realized that the first installments would be deducted in one shot and remaining on monthly EMI’s. Till date the complainant has not received any freebies promised. The free sites were promised in Coconut Groove-Tumkur, and even the sites identified for the complainant were also written on the back side of the application. One of the official calls the complainant in January 2008 stating that there is no site in the Coconut groove and the promise made by the company is baseless and with deceptive intention to make unethical gain and cause wrongful loss to the complainant.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The site allotment letter shows that the sites at Vedic spa and not at Coconut groove, Tumkur as promised earlier. The complainant went to the office at Indiranagar on 01/12/2008, 10/12/2008 and enquired about the sites to be allotted to the complainant. But instead of allotting the sites at the place promised freely as per the terms of membership, now they are again demanding the money with cheating intention. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Notice was sent to the Op under RPAD for its version and the same was served on it. On the date of version neither Op appeared nor filed its version and no one represented the OP. Hence Op placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of complainant.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant specifically on oath stated about the payment of amount and documents produced by the complainant also completely corroborates the payment of amount. When the OP has agreed to provide all facilities with allotment of site if the complainant’s becomes a member, it is the bounden duty of the OP to provide all facilities and to allot the site as agreed. But after the receipt of the amount, the Op neither provided the facilities nor allotted the site. Even the acquisition of the land for formation of site is also not provided by the Op. When the OP has failed to abide by the condition given at the time of receiving the amount it is the bounden duty of the OP to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] These facts have not been specifically denied by the Op. Even though the notice was served on it, it remained absent and failed to submit its statement of objection to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In the absence of specific denial by the Op, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the observation made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization including the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sri. M.S. Bhushan Kumar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Aged about 38 years[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] S/o. Sri. Sudhama Murthy[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Residing at No.189[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] II Floor, I Main[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Dattatreya Extension[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] K.G. agar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 019[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    /vs/



    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Managing Director[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] M/s. Country Club (I) Limited[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.750, Brindavan[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Ground Floor[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Krishna Temple Road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Near Sapna Book Stores[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Indiranagar 1st Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest, Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,000/- towards legal notice, costs and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a qualified Swimming Coach to train swimmers and is working as Swimming Coach at Basavanagudi Aquatic Centre, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004. One Sri. Anil Kumar, Deputy General Manager who is the person incharge of the Op’s Club, who is responsible for marketing and sales had sent his representative, Sri. Sunil, to the Complainant’s place of work, the Swimming pool, at Basavanagudi Aquatic Centre, Bangalore-560 004. The said representative has offered the membership of the Country Club for Rs.1,25,000/- with the following assurances:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]a)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]A site situated on the National Highway near Nelamangala will be allotted and that the club for the purpose of membership fee it would arrange a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from the banks with which it has a tie up and that complainant has to pay monthly installment of Rs.3,500/- per month to the Bank and that the interest towards the loan will be borne by the club.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]b)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]That the club offers Free Holidays accommodations in Star Hotels across India and the members will have to pay only Luxury taxes.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]c)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The complainant submits that the said representative, Sri. Sunil, took the filled in form on 31/12/2007 and that the Op had swiped Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant’s three credit cards, namely SBI card, ICICI Card and Standard Chartered Credit card and after that he was allotted a ‘KOOL COUNTRY CLUB’ Card NO.1382 and dependent cards were also issued to his wife and son. As per the assurances he was expected to pay only Rs.3,500/- per month, but to his dismay he had received the following credit statement for immediate payment.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant had approached and spoken to the Customer care people of the Ops Club and also to Mr. Anil Kumar, who had promised to look into the matter. But even after lapse of two months no representative has come to discuss the issue with him. The Op has been grossly negligent and the deficiency in service and has made the complainant to suffer mental agony and also because of non-payment of all his credit cards have been temporarily withdrawn which have caused great humiliation to him. The said notice sent through registered post acknowledgement due and under certificate of posting has been duly served on the OP on 02/04/008. That inspite of receipt of the said legal notice, the Op has neither complied with the demand made in the notice nor chosen to reply to it. Hence the complainant having left with no other alternative remedy has filed this complaint before this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Perused the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the Op has received Rs.1,25,000/- from complainant through three credit cards namely SBI Card, ICICI Card and Standard Chartered Credit Card towards Cool Card Membership and allotment of site on the National Highway near Nelamangala and free holidays accommodations in Star Hotels across India for which Op has issued Cool Card Membership vide No.1382. After lapse of two months OP never bothered to fulfilling the assurances. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] After payment of the amount, the Op utilized the said amount for its business purpose and the complainant has deprived of in using the said amount. The complainant neither received any communications from the OP for which, the Op has to pay the interest on the said amount.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] When the Op has failed to provide the benefits and failed to allot the site it is the bounden duty of the OP to refund the amount whenever it was demanded by the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order with interest @ 18% p.a from 19/01/2008 to till the date of realization including the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Shivakumar B. K.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.158, 7th A Main[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 3rd Stage, 4th Block[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Basaveshwaranagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 079[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    /vs/



    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Country Club (India) Limited[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.675, 9th A Main, 1st Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Indiranagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that in the month of November 2006, Complainant was offered the life membership of the Country Club along with the family package, membership to other Country Club establishments and 1089 sq. ft. plot in Coconut Groove in Tumkur, Karnataka State for a membership fee of Rs.1,15,000/-. Accordingly, he made the payment through interest free EMI offered by ICICI Bank and Citi Bank Visa Credit Cards vide Receipt No.23504 and 23505 dated 2nd December 2006 for Rs.75,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. He received a letter on 4th December 2006 confirming his membership vide Membership No.COOLCG4934. They also confirmed that the complementary plot at Coconut Groove in Tumkur will be allotted only on payment of full membership fee, which he had promptly did. Further he was asked to pay up the Administrative charges and the associated Luxury Tax for the facilities.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In the meantime complainant kept reminding Country Club about the allotment of the Plot in Tumkur which was part of the offer package. During this period no response was received from Country Club. After waiting for seven months from the date of full payment, a letter of allotment was received from Amrutha Estates, division of Country Club on 17th July 2007 stating that the plot will be allotted at Phase III, Coconut Groove, Vedic Spa at Survey No.402 & 403, Pandiparthi Village, Penukonda Taluk, Ananthapuram District, Andra Pradesh State. Instead of offering the plot in Coconut Groove, Tumkur, he was forced to accept this offer. Inspite of his repeated requests that he was not interested in any plots other than that in Tumkur which was offered to him originally, neither Country Club nor Amrutha Estates have responded favorably. Instead he was asked to pay Rs.15,000/- towards administrative charges for the plot in Pandiparthi Village. The letter also mentioned that if timely payment is not made the allotment will be changed to a different phase. The complainant was told that the development of other phases may take longer time.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant paid for the membership with the understanding that he would get plot in Tumkur, Karnataka which is his home State and with a long term plan to settle in Karnataka. As the request was not met, he did not even utilize the membership benefits so far with a view to cancel it. Since nearly two years have elapsed, complainant no longer plan to have plot in Tumkur nor would like to utilize the Club facilities, with all these hardship and financial worries. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Perused the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the receipt issued by the Op clearly discloses that it has received Rs.1,15,000/- towards Cool Card Membership vide No.COOLCG4934. As per the terms and conditions, the Op has to allot a plot in its Coconut Grove, Tumkur. But Amrtuha Estates has sent a letter dated 17/07/07 to the complainant stating that it has allotting a complimentary free site at Coconut Goove vadic Country spa at Pendiparthy Village, Penukonda Taluk, Ananthapuram District, for which complainant has to pay Rs.15,000/- towards site confirmation and administrative charges. But the complainant totally refused by saying that it is actually in the border of Andhra Pradesh and he has not accepted for it. This clearly establishes that after receipt of the amount, the OP failed to allot the plot in the Coconut groove and when it failed to allot the plot as greed by it, it is the bounden duty of the Op to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] After payment of the amount, the Op utilized the said amount for its business purpose and the complainant has deprived of in using the said amount. The complainant neither received the plot nor the amount for which, the Op has to pay the interest on the said amount.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order with interest @ 15% p.a from 02/12/2006 to till the date of realization including the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Dr. Nagashree K.R.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] (SRINIVASA DENTAL CLINIC)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.4, (New No.37), 5th Cross[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] M.R. Garden, V.Nagenahalli[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] R.T.Nagar Post[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 032[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    /vs/




    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Country Club (India) Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Indiranagar 1st Stage[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore-560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest, compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had taken kool card membership of country club by paying Rs.25,000/- on 07/07/2008 (Membership No.KOOL 3980) as advance to executive of country club Mr. Abdul Gaffar Gilani. The total amount of Membership was Rs.1,45,000/-.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Due to financial constraints he cancelled the Membership on 4/09/2008 and asked for refund of advance amount of Rs.25,000/- for which he submitted a request in Indiranagar branch of country club for which no acknowledgement was given to us inspite of request. The complainant had been sending repeated E-mails, phone SMS and have been visiting repeatedly for repayment of our money, but he did not get any response from them. Even on his visit to the office number of times nobody was responding properly and they were behaving in a negative manner. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Even after 3 months of submission of his application for cancellation and refund of advance amount no action has been taken by the country club. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave her evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant specifically on oath stated that the payment of Rs.25,000/- towards Cool Card Membership and the receipts issued by the Op corroborates the evidence of the complainant. The e-mail correspondences produced by the complainant also discloses about the cancellation of the membership and requesting for the refund of the amount. According to the Op, the membership amount is not refundable and complainant shall transfer to any other member nominated by her. Except taking the contention in their pleadings, the OP has not produced any terms and conditions in support of their contention. When the OP has not rendered any service for the amount received from the complainant, it is the bounden duty of the OP to refund the amount soon after the cancellation made by the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund of an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] All these amounts are to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    [FONT=&quot]Complainant:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mr. P.N. Mohan[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Son of[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Aged about years[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Residing at No.6[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 2nd Cross, West Link Road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Malleswaram[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 003[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

    /vs/



    [FONT=&quot]Opposite Party:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd.,[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] R/by its Manager[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Sales and Marketing (South)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] No.675, Old Syndicate Bank Road[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] 1st Stage, Indiranagar[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Bangalore- 560 038[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of the amount of Rs.85,000/- + administrative charges, with interest, cost and for such other reliefs.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the Op had invited the complainant in the year 2006 and promised him of few attracted schemes to become a member of Op Club and the complainant believing the Op in good faith, had become a member of the Op club subject to the benefits. The Op had promised him of offering him a site measuring 1089 square feet by becoming a member of the Op club on payment of Rs.85,000/-. The complainant had become a member of the Op club and paid Rs.42,500/- i.e. 50% of Rs.85,000/- vide Receipt No.23919 dated 6/12/2006. The complainant also introduced two of his friends namely Mr. S.Selvakumar and Mr. P.Shanmughanathan in terms of availing certain benefits offered under Op scheme.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The complainant has received another letter dated 12/12/2006, wherein the Op has demanded balance 50% of membership amount of Rs.42,500/-. According to the contents of Op letter the complainant paid a sum of Rs.42,500/- which amount the Op acknowledge vide receipt No.29094 dated 29/01/2008. The complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.3,666/- towards Annual Administrative charges, which amount also Op have acknowledge vide Receipt No.36413 dated 10/03/2008. The complainant thereafter, approached Op several times and enquired about the allotment of site as assured by the Op. But the complainant was surprised and shocked to notice that Op was not responding positively to his queries since March 2008 to till date. The complainant has put to lot of inconvenience, hardship, financial loss and mental agony on account of Op irresponsible acts.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Since the OP failed to allot a site or refund the amount, the complainant issued a legal notice to the Op dated 25/09/2008. The Op has not replied to the complainant’s legal notice. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit and also submitted additional affidavit with documents. Heard arguments on both sides.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] All the facts have been admitted in this case. The learned counsel for Op submitted that even now Op is ready to register the site as soon as registration and miscellaneous charges are paid. But the Op has not produced any documents to show that it has already acquired lands to allot the same to its members. The learned counsel for Op submitted that the complainant has utilized the benefits provided by the club and he can not claim back the refund of the amount. As per learned counsel for complainant after collecting the amount, the Op never bothered to respond to the request of the complainant. When we peruse the correspondences complainant all along demanding for the refund of the amount because of negative attitude of the Op. The Op has not produced any documents in support of its contention. When the Op has failed to provide the benefits and failed to allot the land it is the bounden duty of the OP to refund the amount whenever it was demanded by the complainant. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.88,666/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its deposit to till the date of realization.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant towards the cost of this litigation and all these amount are to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    C.C.112/2008

    Between:

    B.Nageswara Rao Dora,
    H.No.2-29, Kanapaka Sai Baba Colony,
    Vizianagaram. …….complainant.

    And

    1. The Country Club,
    (A Division of Country Club (India) Ltd.,)
    6-3-1219, Begumpet,
    Hyderabad.
    2. Amrutha Estates,
    # 8-2-703, Silver Oak,
    Amrutha valley,
    Road, No.12, Banjara Hills,
    Hyderabad. ……opposite parties.

    This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.V.Subba Rao and Sri P.V.Ganesh, advocates for complainant and of Sri A.V.C.N.Nageswara Rao Sri Y.K.M.Lakshmi and Sri T.Jeevan, advocates for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

    O R D E R

    1. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to (a) refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with interest thereon at 24% per annum from the date of payment by complainant till realization, (b) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant, (c) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards traveling expenses from Vizianagaram to Hyderabad, where the opposite parties are residing, (d) to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards legal notice and etc., expenditure and (e) to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
    2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on being induced by members of the staff of opposite party No.1, that upon joining as a member, the complainant will be given two plots in CK III Tapovanam, Hyderabad, the complainant joined as a member by paying Rs.40,000/- to opposite party No.1 by way of demand draft dated 07-09-2006. Subsequently, opposite party No.1 in its letter dated 20-09-2006 intimated that the complainant’s membership number is CLN – 385 in Mr. Cool (non local) with Country Kuteeram of the Country Club, Begumpet, Hyderabad. It was further intimated that the complainant should pay Rs.80,000/- towards membership fee out of which the complainant already paid Rs.40,000/- as such the complainant was required to pay the balance of Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly by way of Demand Draft the said sum of Rs.40,000/- was remitted to opposite party No.1 through one Mr. D.Jagadish Babu at Vizianagaram. Thus the entire amount was paid by the complainant which was acknowledged in the receipt dated 05-10-2006 issued by the said Jagadish Babu. He mentioned the plot numbers 3196 and 3189.
    3. That the opposite party No.2 in its letter dated 13-10-2006 and 21-12-2006 required the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- per each plot in favour of opposite party No.2 towards development and maintenance charges of the two plots for two and half years. Further opposite party No.2 informed that the registration of plots would commence within three months. The complainant accordingly remitted Rs.10,000/- for each plot by way of two demand drafts dated 04-01-2007 in favour of opposite party No.2. The opposite parties failed to register the two plots/refund the amount inspite of several letters and request made by the complainant. That there is deficiency of service causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant.
    4. Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting the complaint allegation that the complainant joined as a member and the opposite party allotted membership number CLN – 385. It is contended that whoever joines as a member under the scheme, will be given a plot of land as complementary without taking any consideration. The opposite party No.2 is sister concern of opposite party No.1. An oral memorandum of understanding was entered into by opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.2 for allotment of complementary plots to the members by executing gift deed. Accordingly the opposite parties have allotted plot numbers 3196 and 3189 in their letters dated 13-10-2006 and 21-12-2006. That the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- towards development/maintenance of each plot for two and half years. That the opposite parties are registering complementary plots. At this stage, the complainant is seeking for refund of money. That the refund of money does not arise since the two plots are offered towards complementary without any sale consideration. That the amount paid by the complainant towards club membership is non refundable as per the terms and conditions. That the complainant signed all the relevant papers containing terms and conditions before joining as a member. That as per the terms and conditions, no member is entitled for refund of the amount that was paid towards membership. That there is no deficiency of service and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
    5. Opposite party No.2 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.1.
    6. For the complainant, affidavit is filed and Exts.A.1 to A.4 are marked. For the opposite parties, Manager of Visakhapatnam Branch Office of opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit but no documents are marked.
    7. Heard on behalf of the complainant and perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite parties. The point for consideration is Whether there is deficiency in service?
    8. POINT:- It is submitted during the course of written arguments filed on behalf of opposite parties to the effect that the complainant has taken his membership with the opposite parties’ club. As per the scheme, members are being given one plot of land as complementary without taking any consideration. Accordingly the complainant herein was allotted plot numbers 3196 and 3189. Now the complainant is seeking for refund of the money which is not permissible as per terms and conditions which were gone through and signed on relevant papers by the complainant before he joined as a member. It is also submitted that as per the rules and bye-laws, the complainant is not entitled for refund of any amount paid by him towards membership of the Country Club. We have perused the documents of the complainant, the counter and affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.1. The receipt of total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant is admitted. Similarly, allotment of plot No.3189 and 3196 is also intimated to the complainant as per Exts.A.4 and A.5. The opposite parties should have filed the relevant papers which were said to have been signed by the complainant going through the terms and conditions, before joining as a member. Those papers are very much relevant so as to appreciate that the complainant is fully aware of those terms but contrary to the same, seeking refund of the amount. There is no reason forthcoming explaining why the opposite parties have withheld such material documents without producing before the Forum. The opposite parties have not adverted to in the counter and in the affidavit, that the complainant has availed any services of the Club. As things stand before this Forum, the undisputed fact is that complainant became a member of the club by paying Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties have not placed the alleged documents showing that the complainant has signed the said documents containing all terms and conditions before taking membership in the Club. Similarly, under what circumstances a member is not entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, are also not available for scrutiny by this Forum. It is beyond anybody’s comprehension, how a member of club is interested to have house plots at Hyderabad? Further there is nothing before this Forum that the complainant is aware of the alleged oral memorandum of understanding between opposite party No.1 and the complainant for allotment of complementary plots to its members. Basing on the material on record we hold, introduction of allotment of plot is something beyond club activity.
    9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on a decision reported in I (2006) SLT 166 between the Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd., - Appellant Versus Agmander Singh & Anr., - Respondents. He submitted that when there is an agreement between two parties reduced into writing, ones cannot interfere with the terms and conditions and re-write agreement. On facts it was a case where a hire purchase agreement was executed between the Financier and Hirer. The Hirer committed default in payment of the instalments as agreed. In such an event, the agreement provides for repossession of the vehicle. Thus the facts in that case have no application to the facts of this case. Apart from that, the opposite parties have not chosen to file the terms and conditions which are alleged to have been signed by the complainant before taking membership with the opposite parties club. Considering the material on record we hold that there is deficiency in service. Accordingly this point is answered.
    10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 04-01-2007 till realization. We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    ORDER


    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th APRIL 2009 PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NOs. 1687/2008, 459/2009 468/2009, 474/2009, 475/2009 & 500/2009 COMPLAINT NO.1687/2008COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.459/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.468/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.474/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.475/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.500/2009COMPLAINANT Wing Commander D C Pandey,C/o Chief Instructor,Fixed Wing Training Faculty,Air Force Station,Yelahanka,Bangalore – 560063.Also atWing Commander D C Pandey,C/o Commanding Officer,12 Squadron, Air Force,C/o 56 APO.Advocate – Nandita HaldipurSri.K.Pradeep,Aged about 33 years,S/o K.Kittannacharya,Residing at No.23,Gagan Nivas, 1st Main, 1st Floor, Yallamma Temple Street,R.T Nagar Post, Ganganagar,Bangalore – 560 032.Advocate – Sri.Muniswamy GowdaSri.Ananda Theerthan,S/o Late K.Subba Rao,Aged about 52 years,R/at No.5, Vaishanavi Layout,Vidhyaranyapura,Near Air force Compound,Bangalore – 560 097.Advocate – Sri.PrabhakarMr.Bhupendra Judge,S/o Khazan Singh Judge,Aged 33 years,C/o Mrs.Anita Losang,Resident of No.470,5th ‘A’ Cross,8th Main, V Stage, II Phase,B.E.M.L Layout,Rajarejeshwari Nagar, Bangalore – 560 098.Mrs.Anita Losang,W/o Mr.N.Awang,Aged 38 years,Resident of No.470,5th ‘A’ Cross,8th Main, V Stage, II Phase,B.E.M.L Layout,Rajarejeshwari Nagar, Bangalore – 560 098.Advocate – Sri.I.S.Pramod ChandraSaurabh Srivastava,A-2 Nigam Niwas,1st ‘C’ Cross,Kaggadaspura Main Road,CV Ramannagar,Bangalore,Karnataka - 560093 OPPOSITE PARTIES V/s1) The Country Club Bangalore,# 19, 1st Floor, 13th Cross,7th Main, Indiranagar 1st StageBangalore – 560038.2) Chairman & Managing Director, Country Club (India) Ltd.,No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,Indira Nagar, 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.3) The Managing Director,M/s. Country Club India Ltd.,# 273, 1st Main Road,Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,Bangalore – 560 038.4) The Manager,Amrutha Estates,No.478, “Maha Padma”,1st Main, 1st Stage,Indira Nagar,Bangalore – 560 038.Advocate – Sri.S.M.Manjunatha O R D E R These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by each one these respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund what ever the amount they have paid and pay a compensation and damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. As the opposite parties in all the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, these cases stand disposed of by this common order. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under: 2. Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP thought of becoming the member of the club under various schemes. OP accepted their membership and collected the fees not only that OP has collected the monthly subscription fees also. OP promised so many attractive offers like ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay for 6 nights and 7 days, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay, complimentary sites etc. But thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of theirs complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainants in not providing the basic facilities and the services as promised. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For the convenience sake the card membership, amount paid, membership number, date of legal notice noted below in the chart. When the repeated requests and demands made by the complainants have gone in vain they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly. Sl No. Complaint No. Card member ship Amount paid Member ship No. Notice / / Legal Notice 1) 1687/2008 Mr.Cool Card Membership Rs.1,15,000/- COOL CG4816 13.11.2007 2) 459/2009 Mr.Kool CardLife Membership Rs.1,45,000/- KOOL 2553
    3) 468/2009 Mr.Cool Card Membership Rs.1,42,500/- COOL CG4849 24.12.2008 4) 474/2009 Mr.Super Cool Membership Rs.1,99,000/- COOL S 290 29.08.2008 5) 475/2009 Mr.Super Cool Membership Rs.1,89,000/- COOL S 273 29.08.2008 6) 500/2009 Mr.Kool Life Rs.2,20,000/- KOOL 3838
    2. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in all the complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the version is as under: According to OP the club membership fee that is paid by each one of these complainants is non refundable. It is further contended that the OP’s are ready to execute the deed with respect to the complimentary sites in favour of the complainants as soon as complainants pay the registration and other miscellaneous charges as required. Each one of these complainants have extensively used the club facilities. The other allegations made by the complainants are all false and frivolous. Complaints are devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation nor obliged to refund the fees. Among these grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant’s have Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant’s are entitled for the relief’s now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the out set it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants become the member of the OP scheme as noted in the chart. OP accepted their membership and allotted them certain number. It is also not at dispute that OP collected the membership fees as well as service charges as noted in the chart from each one of these complainants. Now the main grievance of the complainants is that though OP collected the service charges failed to provide the facilities as promised. 7. According to the complainants in complaint Nos.1687/2008 and 468/2009 OP promised them to provide stay at ‘Royal Goan Beach club’ for 6 nights and 7days, free air ticket to Goa and stay at wildlife resort, ‘BUSH BETTA’ and other facilities. In spite of their repeated requests and demands OP failed to extend the said service as promised. The evidence of the complainant’s which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. Even there is a promise of complimentary plots, they are not given and registered. 8. When OP failed to heed to their demand complainants even caused the notice / legal notice on 13.11.2007, 24.12.2008 and 29.08.2008. Copies of the notice / legal notice, postal acknowledgements are produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainants felt deficiency in service. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk their responsibility and obligation. The defence of the OP that what ever the club membership fees paid is non refundable has no basis. 9. It is further contended by the OP that even now it is ready to execute the sale deed with respect to the complimentary sites if complainants pay required registration fees and stamp duty. No where complainants have sought for allotment of a complimentary site in their favour and registration of the same. So this defence of the OP is very strange. 10. OP is not very much sure about its own defence. No where OP has stated that it provided ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay as contended by the complainants. So when there is no specific denial of the said allegations, in our view it amounts to an admission. Though OP received such a huge amount from each one of these complainants but failed to provide the said facilities as promised thereby accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of theirs. Here we find the deficiency in service. 11. The approach of the OP does not appear to be as very much fair and honest. Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Under such circumstances they are entitled for certain relief. Of course the claim of compensation by these complaints appears to be exorbitant and high. There is no basis for the said claim. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund what ever the amount it has received from the complainants towards membership along with token of compensation and litigation cost. With these observations we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints are allowed in part. 1. In complaint No.1687/2008 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from December 2001 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 2. In complaint No.459/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from January 2008 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 3. In complaint No.468/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,42,500/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from February 2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 4. In complaint No.474/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,99,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from February 2006 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 5. In complaint No.475/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,89,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from January 2006 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 6. In complaint No.500/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.2,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from September 2008 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    COMPLAINT NO. 206 OF 2009

    Mr.Goutham Prakash,
    Flat No.406, Edxpress Apartment,
    No.135, Richmond Road,
    Bangalore – 560 025.
    Represented by his Power of Attorney

    Holder and his mother Smt.Chandrika.
    …. Complainant.
    V/s

    M/s Country Club (India) Limited,
    Represented by its Director,
    #534, 16th Cross, 2nd Stage,
    Indiranaar, Bangalore 038.
    …. Opposite Party
    -: ORDER:-
    This complaint is filed claiming Rs.2,50,000/- towards expenses incurred, Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience, in all Rs.4,00,000/- from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-
    Based on the advertisements of Opposite Party Company and personal visits of their executive, the complainant was first induced and subsequently coerced into investing Rs.2,50,000/- for a membership under MR.SUPER COOL VEDIC SPA with promise and assurance of vacant land measuring 2,178 Sq.Ft. at BANYAN TREE, DEVANAHALLI ROAD along with other assurances and benefits detailed in para-3 of the complaint. It was also assured that the membership will entitle the member to use country club resorts and clubs in India and abroad without any charges/payment and were entitled to get entry to use facility free of cost or charges throughout membership tenure. The sales representative of the Opposite Party thus persuaded the complainant to go for the MR.SUPER COOL PRIVILEGE CARD MEMBERSHIP and stated that it was limited period offer and will be closing shortly. Though the complainant wanted to understand the implications and benefits of the membership, the representative of the Opposite Party persistently persuaded him to enter the membership as it was limited period offer. Since the complainant had doubts about the genuineness of the gifts and assurances, he wanted to invest only Rs.15,000/- and pay the balance if he had time to thoroughly study, understand, visit the premises. However, the sales executive induced and persuaded him to part with another sum of Rs.85,000/- in all Rs.1,00,000/- to obtain temporary card of membership. He signed some forms and was informed that there were membership forms and that the complete details will be filled by them later. Believing those representations, the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- and signed improperly filled forms at the instance of the representative of the Opposite Party. He was assured that the copies of duly filled forms would be sent shortly. Even after lapse of one week, he did not receive the copies of the membership forms as assured and therefore called the Bangalore office of the Opposite Party to check on the status and was informed by the sales representative that he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to complete the formalities and thereafter the completed forms will be sent. Accordingly he made payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards membership on 22.02.2008 and requested the representative of the Opposite Party to send the copies of improperly filled membership forms for his perusal and reference. The Opposite Party sent the letters dated:01.03.2008 AND 24.03.2008 along with the receipt and laminated membership form, but the completed membership form as assured by the sales executive was not sent. After several discussions and phone calls, the complainant became suspicious about genuineness of the club the offer and use of the membership forms. He approached the Bangalore Office of the Opposite Party and demanded to show the site and explain regarding other offers. But the representative of the Opposite Party postponed in giving him site visit on one pretext or the other. When he requested to see her membership forms containing his signatures, he was shown the forms and on perusal he found some tampering on the membership form. When questioned, the concerned representative became very aggressive and defensive and took away the membership form and refused to give the copy of the same. Subsequent phone calls and requests were not responded to by the Opposite Party. There is tampering on the unfilled membership forms and the Opposite Party has not complied with the assurance given. He requested the Opposite Party to send the copies of his membership forms signed by him under undue influence so as to enable him to understand the terms, conditions, gift scheme. The complainant invested Rs.2,50,000/- under various vague and tainted assurances and is entitled to have a copy of the membership form signed by him without being duly filled up for his reference. He issued legal notice dated:14.11.2008, but even after receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Party has not chosen to reply or respond. Due to omission on the part of the Opposite Party, he has been suffering from mental agony, stress and strain. Hence, the complaint.
    2. In Spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent. In support of the claim, the GPA holder of the complainant has filed her affidavit and has produced copies of documents. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.
    3. The points for consideration:-
    1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
    2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
    4. Our findings are:-
    Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
    Point No.2 : As per final order
    For the following:-
    -:REASONS:-
    5. The copies of the receipt produced by the complainant make it clear that he has paid Rs.2,50,000/- towards MR SUPER COOL VEDIC SPA MEMBERSHIP. Admittedly the complainant also received the Laminated Membership Card from the Opposite Party. A reading of the complaint makes it clear that the grievance of the complainant is only with regard to non supply of the membership forms by the Opposite Party. The complainant admits for having signed some membership forms furnished by the representative of the Opposite Party at the time of making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards membership fee. He alleges that at some point of time he visited the office of the Opposite Party and found that the membership form has been tampered by the Opposite Party. But as to what is the tampering in the membership form is not disclosed by the complainant. Though it is alleged that the Opposite Party did not comply with the promise made at the time of accepting the membership, the allegations in that regard are very vague. The claim made by the complainant is not for refund of the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- paid towards membership fee. The complainant has claimed Rs.2,50,000/- towards expenses incurred, but has not furnished the details of the expenses incurred by him. On the basis of the vague allegation in the complaint, we are unable to make out that the complainant has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and the Opposite Party is liable to reimburse the same. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.2,50,000/- towards expenses as claimed. For the lapse on the part of the Opposite Party in not furnishing the copy of the membership form, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- which in our opinion is exorbitant and on the higher side. The omission on the part of the Opposite Party in not furnishing the copy of membership form to the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service. But on that account, the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Having regard to the contentions in the complaint, in our opinion it is just and proper to direct the Opposite Party to furnish the complainant with the copy of the membership form submitted by him and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience suffered. In the result, we pass the following:-
    -:ORDER:-
    • The complaint is ALLOWED IN PART.
    • The Opposite Party is directed to furnish the copy of the membership form submitted by the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- including the costs of the proceedings. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    2009 Gurubasavaiah B.M. No. 283, 6th Main, 2nd Stage 2nd Phase, Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore 560 086 Complainant

    V/S

    1. G.S. David Branch Manager Sales & Marketing Country Club (India) Ltd. No. 246, 13th Cross, Indiranagar 2nd Stage, Bangalore 38 2. Guruprasad Manager – Sales Country Club (India) Ltd. No. 246, 13th Cross, Indiranagar 2nd Stage, Bangalore 38 3. Venkatesh Reddy DM – Executive Country Club (India) Ltd. No. 246, 13th Cross, Indiranagar 2nd Stage, Bangalore 38 Opposite Parties


    ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale


    This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he has paid Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite parties on 17.10.2008 for membership. The opposite parties have promised allotment of sites and made so many false promises. Complainant asked the opposite parties to terminate the membership and refund the money. The opposite parties have committed to refund the money on or before 28.02.2009 and given in writing. After that also the opposite parties have not kept up the promise. Therefore, the complainant is forced to file complaint before this forum seeking refund of the amount with interest.


    2. Notice issued to opposite parties by RPAD. The notice served. When the case was set for appearance of the opposite parties, the opposite parties remained absent. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Defence version also not sent by registered post. Therefore, opposite parties placed as exparte.


    3. Heard the complainant and perused the documents.


    4. The complainant has produced receipts dated 17.10.2008. As per the receipts the complainant has paid Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite parties towards Mr. Kool Life Membership. The complainant has produced a letter dated 03.02.2009 asking to terminate the membership and refund the amount. On the said letter itself the opposite party No. 3 Mr. Venkatesh Reddy had made endorsement as follows: “We will refund Rs. 30,000/- within 28th of Feb, 2009. Please do not file any Consumer Case. Thank you, Venkatesh Reddy Sd/-”


    5. As per this endorsement also it is very clear that the complainant has paid Rs. 30,000/- to the opposite parties towards Mr. Kool Membership. The opposite parties have committed to refund the amount. But in spite of the said commitment the opposite parties failed to refund the amount as promised. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file the complaint. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite parties have not appeared before this forum inspite of service of notice. It appears that the opposite parties have no defence to make. That is why they have remained absent. There is absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The complainant wants cancellation of membership and refund of amount. The opposite parties are bound to refund the amount with interest. The opposite parties have utilized the money of the complainant. Therefore, legally they are bound to pay the interest. In the result I proceed to pass the following:




    ORDER



    6. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 17.10.2008 till payment / realization.



    7. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings to the complainant.


    8. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Muraleedharan Nair.K,
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    The Manager,Country Vacations,Country Club (India) Ltd.,

    The Manager,Country Vacations,
    ...........Respondent(s)

    Muraleedharan Nair K. No. 11, 13th Cross, K.R. Garden Vinayakanagar, ‘B’ Block Bangalore 17 Complainant

    V/S

    1. The Manager, Country Vacations Country Club (India) Limited (a Division of Country Club Ltd.) No. 264, Bangalore-Mysore Road Near Toll Gate Mysore
    2. The Manager, Country Vacations (a Division of Country Club Ltd.) No. 273, HAL 2nd Stage Bangalore Opposite Parties


    ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale

    This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case are that the opposite parties approached the complainant and made him to become a member of country club with great assurances and complainant has paid sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in all vide receipts No. 814 dated 30.03.2007 and receipt No. 849 dated 24.04.2007. The opposite parties have issued membership but failed to perform their part of contract in not providing two plots measuring 1089 sq. ft. each. Matter remained only on the paper and they have not enforced the said promises as assured. Complainant made several visits with opposite party but no fruitful result. He had caused letters. Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest and compensation.


    2. Notice issued to opposite parties through RPAD. The notice to opposite party No. 1 returned with endorsement ‘not claimed’ and notice to opposite party No. 2 served. When the case set for appearance of opposite parties on 21.04.2009 they remained absent. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Even the opposite parties have not sent defence version by post. Therefore, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 placed exparte.


    3. The complainant filed affidavit evidence in support of his case. Heard the complainant and matter was taken up for orders. I have perused the complaint and documents.


    4. The complainant has produced receipt dated 30.03.2007 which is for Rs. 50,000/- and another receipt dated 24.04.2007, which is also for Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant has produced agreement and he has also produced plot allotment letter. He has produced the copies of letters. The complainant has addressed letter to the opposite parties requesting to terminate his membership and arrange to return the money with interest. The complainant who was present in person submitted that he does not want membership in the club and allotment of plots and he submitted that he has not utilized any services from the opposite parties. Complainant submitted that he is not happy with the attitude of the opposite parties and do not want to continue his membership any more. He requested that the opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount paid by him with interest. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. There is no contrary defence from the opposite parties. The opposite parties though served with notice from the forum have failed to appear and contest the matter. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the facts stated in the affidavit by the complainant. The payment made by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been proved and established. The complainant has not taken any service from the opposite party and he does not want to continue as membership of the opposite parties’ club. So under these circumstances it would be just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite parties to refund amount to the complainant. Since, the opposite parties have utilized the money paid by the complainant they are bound to pay the interest. On the facts of the case it would be just, fair and reasonable to award 12% interest p.a. on the amount. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant along with 12% interest p.a. from the date of respective dates of payment till payment / realization within 30 days from the date of this order.


    6. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings to the complainant. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Smt. Archana Jhajharia W/o. Surya Kant R/at 192, 6th Main, BCC Layout Bangalore 560 040 Complainant

    V/S

    1. M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd. Regd. Office: Amrutha Castle 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp. Secretariat Hyderabad 560 063 2. The Manager Sales & Marketing M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd. South # 847, 100 ft. Road Adj. to Indiranagar Post Office Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 Opposite Parties COMPLAINT NO: 415 OF 2009 B.E. Vinod Kumar No. 3/5A, I Cross, 4th Main Abbayappa Layout, N.S. Palya B.T.M. Layout II Stage Bangalore 560 076 Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 416 OF 2009 Hari K. C/o. Vijay Mangala Logistics No. B-177, I Floor, D.D.U.T.T.L. Industrial Suburb, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore 560 022 Complainant V/S Country Club (India) Limited # 675, 9th A Main Road Indiranagar I Stage Bangalore 560 038 Opposite Party

    ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale

    All three complaints are clubbed together for passing common orders since the facts and law points involved in these three complaints are one and the same and the opposite party in all these cases is one and the same. The respective complainants have filed complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying refund of the amount paid to the opposite party towards Mr. Cool Card Membership. The facts of the case are that the opposite party company offered the membership with attractive offers such as free stay for one week in every year for the next 30 years with RCI affiliation, free trip to Goa with one way air tickets for the couple, complimentary stay at Coorg and in addition to this facilities opposite party company also offered free gift of residential plot to the respective complainants. The complainant in complaint No. 153/2009 Archana Jhajharia has paid in all Rs. 2,30,000/- to the opposite party.
    It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party company has not provided any facilities as promised. The complainant requested to allot sites, but company did not give any proper response. The opposite party company is postponing to register the sites as promised. The employees started giving evasive answers and company did not given sites as promised. Therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party company. The complainants have prayed for refund of the amount paid by them with interest.



    2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that the respective complainants have paid the amount towards membership fee. It is also admitted that the company had given offers under the scheme to the complainants. It is the case of the opposite party that they are even now ready to serve its members. The opposite party ready to register site in the name of complainants as soon as complainants makes payment of registration fee and stamp duty. Opposite party is ready to produce approved layout plan and conversion order. Therefore, the opposite party submitted that the complaints are not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.

    3. Arguments are heard.

    4. The points for consideration are: “1. Whether the complainants are proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount?”

    5. I have gone through the complaints, defence version and documents. Complainant in complaint No. 153/2009 Smt. Archana Jhajharia has produced receipt dated 16.08.2006 for Rs. 60,000/- under receipt No. 16835 towards Mr. Super Cool Membership fee through D.D. 318064 and Rs. 70,000/- is paid to the opposite party on 26.08.2006 under receipt No. 17517 through D.D. 318065 and Rs. 50,000/- is paid by the complainant to opposite party on 13.11.2006 under receipt No. 22127 through D.D. 378075 and another Rs. 50,000/- is paid on 02.12.2006 under receipt No. 23597 through D.D. 318066. Totally the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party has accepted the payment made by the complainant. In the defence version the opposite party has stated that even now they are ready to register complimentary site in favour of the complainant. But, the opposite party has not produced the approved layout plan and conversion order to show that sites are ready for allotment. The opposite party has not given any particulars of plots in the defence version. Defence version is not clear whether the plots have been formed, developed and ready for registration. So under these circumstances there is no use in directing the opposite party to register plots in the name of respective complainants. The complainants submitted that they do not want any plots from the opposite party. They are satisfied if the amount paid by them is refunded with interest. This is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has utilised the money received from the complainants.

    Therefore, the opposite party is bound to pay the interest on the amount. The complainant Vinod Kumar in complaint No. 415/2009 has paid in all Rs. 1,15,000/-. Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 02.02.2007 and Rs. 90,000/- was paid on 18.01.2008 through D.D. Receipts have been produced. The complainant in complaint No. 416/2009 Hari K. has paid Rs. 1,25,000/- to the opposite party under different receipts. Payment made by this complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards membership fee is admitted by the opposite party in the defence version. Therefore, there is no dispute what so ever in respect of the amount paid by respective complainants. The complainants want refund of their amount. The prayer of the complainants is quite just, fair and reasonable. If the opposite party is directed to refund the amount in that case no injustice would cause to the opposite party. Opposite party having received the amount and utilised the same is bound to pay the interest.
    Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation. It is intended to protect the better interests of the consumers. The opposite party under the guise of giving so many services and complimentary sites has received the amount from the respective complainants. It has failed to provide any service offered. The defence of the opposite party that even now opposite party is ready to give sites to the respective complainants cannot be accepted and believed because the opposite party has not furnished particulars of plots and documents like approved layout plan and conversion order etc. So there is no merit in the offer of the opposite party.
    Therefore, it is proper to direct the opposite party to refund the amount received from the complainants with interest. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 6. All the complaints are allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2,30,000/- to the complainant Smt. Archana Jhajharia in complaint No. 153/2009 with 12% interest p.a. from respective date of receipt of amount till the date of payment / realisation. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,15,000/- to the complainant B.E. Vinod Kumar in complaint No. 415/2009 with 12% interest p.a. from respective date of receipt of amount till the date of payment / realisation. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant K. Hari in complaint No. 416/2009 with 12% interest p.a. from respective date of receipt of amount till the date of payment / realisation.

    7. The complainants in all the three cases are entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Smt. Archana Jhajharia W/o. Surya Kant R/at 192, 6th Main, BCC Layout Bangalore 560 040 Complainant

    V/S

    1. M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd. Regd. Office: Amrutha Castle 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp. Secretariat Hyderabad 560 063 2. The Manager Sales & Marketing M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd. South # 847, 100 ft. Road Adj. to Indiranagar Post Office Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 Opposite Parties COMPLAINT NO: 415 OF 2009 B.E. Vinod Kumar No. 3/5A, I Cross, 4th Main Abbayappa Layout, N.S. Palya B.T.M. Layout II Stage Bangalore 560 076 Complainant COMPLAINT NO: 416 OF 2009 Hari K. C/o. Vijay Mangala Logistics No. B-177, I Floor, D.D.U.T.T.L. Industrial Suburb, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore 560 022 Complainant V/S Country Club (India) Limited # 675, 9th A Main Road Indiranagar I Stage Bangalore 560 038
    Opposite Party

    ORDER

    By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale All three complaints are clubbed together for passing common orders since the facts and law points involved in these three complaints are one and the same and the opposite party in all these cases is one and the same. The respective complainants have filed complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying refund of the amount paid to the opposite party towards Mr. Cool Card Membership. The facts of the case are that the opposite party company offered the membership with attractive offers such as free stay for one week in every year for the next 30 years with RCI affiliation, free trip to Goa with one way air tickets for the couple, complimentary stay at Coorg and in addition to this facilities opposite party company also offered free gift of residential plot to the respective complainants.

    The complainant in complaint No. 153/2009 Archana Jhajharia has paid in all Rs. 2,30,000/- to the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party company has not provided any facilities as promised. The complainant requested to allot sites, but company did not give any proper response. The opposite party company is postponing to register the sites as promised. The employees started giving evasive answers and company did not given sites as promised. Therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party company. The complainants have prayed for refund of the amount paid by them with interest.


    2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that the respective complainants have paid the amount towards membership fee. It is also admitted that the company had given offers under the scheme to the complainants. It is the case of the opposite party that they are even now ready to serve its members. The opposite party ready to register site in the name of complainants as soon as complainants makes payment of registration fee and stamp duty. Opposite party is ready to produce approved layout plan and conversion order. Therefore, the opposite party submitted that the complaints are not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.


    3. Arguments are heard.

    4. The points for consideration are: “1. Whether the complainants are proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount?”

    5. I have gone through the complaints, defence version and documents. Complainant in complaint No. 153/2009 Smt. Archana Jhajharia has produced receipt dated 16.08.2006 for Rs. 60,000/- under receipt No. 16835 towards Mr. Super Cool Membership fee through D.D. 318064 and Rs. 70,000/- is paid to the opposite party on 26.08.2006 under receipt No. 17517 through D.D. 318065 and Rs. 50,000/- is paid by the complainant to opposite party on 13.11.2006 under receipt No. 22127 through D.D. 378075 and another Rs. 50,000/- is paid on 02.12.2006 under receipt No. 23597 through D.D. 318066. Totally the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party has accepted the payment made by the complainant. In the defence version the opposite party has stated that even now they are ready to register complimentary site in favour of the complainant. But, the opposite party has not produced the approved layout plan and conversion order to show that sites are ready for allotment. The opposite party has not given any particulars of plots in the defence version. Defence version is not clear whether the plots have been formed, developed and ready for registration. So under these circumstances there is no use in directing the opposite party to register plots in the name of respective complainants. The complainants submitted that they do not want any plots from the opposite party. They are satisfied if the amount paid by them is refunded with interest.

    This is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has utilised the money received from the complainants. Therefore, the opposite party is bound to pay the interest on the amount. The complainant Vinod Kumar in complaint No. 415/2009 has paid in all Rs. 1,15,000/-. Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 02.02.2007 and Rs. 90,000/- was paid on 18.01.2008 through D.D. Receipts have been produced. The complainant in complaint No. 416/2009 Hari K. has paid Rs. 1,25,000/- to the opposite party under different receipts. Payment made by this complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards membership fee is admitted by the opposite party in the defence version. Therefore, there is no dispute what so ever in respect of the amount paid by respective complainants.
    The complainants want refund of their amount. The prayer of the complainants is quite just, fair and reasonable. If the opposite party is directed to refund the amount in that case no injustice would cause to the opposite party.
    Opposite party having received the amount and utilised the same is bound to pay the interest. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation. It is intended to protect the better interests of the consumers. The opposite party under the guise of giving so many services and complimentary sites has received the amount from the respective complainants.
    It has failed to provide any service offered. The defence of the opposite party that even now opposite party is ready to give sites to the respective complainants cannot be accepted and believed because the opposite party has not furnished particulars of plots and documents like approved layout plan and conversion order etc. So there is no merit in the offer of the opposite party.
    Therefore, it is proper to direct the opposite party to refund the amount received from the complainants with interest. In the result I proceed to pass the following:

    ORDER

    6. All the complaints are allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2,30,000/- to the complainant Smt. Archana Jhajharia in complaint No. 153/2009 with 12% interest p.a. from respective date of receipt of amount till the date of payment / realisation. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,15,000/- to the complainant B.E. Vinod Kumar in complaint No. 415/2009 with 12% interest p.a. from respective date of receipt of amount till the date of payment / realisation. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant K. Hari in complaint No. 416/2009 with 12% interest p.a. from respective date of receipt of amount till the date of payment / realisation. 7. The complainants in all the three cases are entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    O R D E R

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the payment of Rs.2,51,010/-.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The brief facts of the case are that the Op had approached the complainant and offered Country Club Silver Platinum membership and demanded Rs.25,000/- towards membership fee. Accordingly, Rs.25,000/- was remitted in favour of the OP by cheque on 15/6/2001. The receipt No.135653 dated 15/06/2001 issued by the OP. The OP issued a letter dated 16/6/2001 confirming the membership of the complainant as No.OSP75. The complainant was issued with the money back certificate by the OP. The terms and conditions of the Money back membership are (I) Money will be refunded on completion of five years from the date of receipt of the payment (2) an amount of Rs.3,000/- will be credited to the complainant’s account on yearly basis. The above sum paid towards silver platinum membership along with Rs.3,000/- credited therein on yearly basis was required to be refunded to the complainant after five years i.e on 16/6/2006, as per their scheme. The Op did not refund the said sum to the complainant as on date. In their above letter (dated 16/6/2001), many facilities have been extended to the complainant.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] The above said membership (Silver platinum membership) was upgraded into Cool Privilege card membership on payment of Rs.89,000/- vide receipt No.79744 dated 7/1/2006. In their letter (signed on 07/01/2006) Op had promised to provide free site of 1089 sq. fts, dimension and also to provide another site on the same dimension free of cost. Op had stated therein that sites bearing Nos.194 and 195 in Chest Nut block of Coconut Groove, have been booked in favour of the complainant, as per MGM Scheme, besides many attractive benefits. Op started demanding payment of sum of Rs.10,000/- towards registration of sites 2.5 years of maintenance charges, incidental charges within 30 days. As the complainant developed strong doubts not paid Rs.10,000/- demanded by the Op. The entire exercise by the Op found extremely suspicious in total and unbelievable. In the circumstances, complainant issued notice dated 2/12/2008 by registered post acknowledgement due and under certificate of posting, demanding the above said money deposited with the OP, towards Silver Privilege membership and Cool Card Membership. Even after receipt of the legal notice, Op failed to respond. Hence the complainant approached this forum.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] It is an admitted fact that the OP has received an amount of Rs.89,000/- towards Cool Card Membership and Rs.25,000/- towards Silver Privilege Membership amount. According to learned counsel for OP, Op is prepared to register the sites as assured by it if the registration charges and stamp duties are paid by the complainant. But according to learned counsel for complainant, after receipt of the amount, in spite of several approaches made by the complainant they never bothered to talk to the complainant apart from disclosing whereabouts of the site. The learned counsel submitted that the layout has been approved and the sites are available. But when we peruse the said documents produced by the learned counsel for OP it is in the name of D. Krishna Kumar Raju and it is not known in what way he is concerned to the Op Club. When the Op has collected the amount it is the bounden duty to issue the Membership and register the site as per the agreement. But the OP has failed to comply with terms and conditions and apart from that it never bothered to refund the amount inspite of claim made by the complainant. This sort of an act on the part of the Op amounts to deficiency in service.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we pass the following order.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]O R D E R[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,29,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of respective deposits to till the date of realization including the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.[/FONT]
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Complainants:

    1. A.V. Raman

    S/o. A.N. Vishwanathan

    Aged about 50 years



    2. Vijaya Raman

    W/o. A.V. Raman

    Aged about 44 years



    Both residing at No.303

    Mantri Paradise, Arekere Gate

    Bannerughatta Road

    Bangalore – 560 076

    /vs/



    Opposite Parties:



    1. M/s. Country Vacations India

    Pvt. Ltd.,

    (a unit of M/s. Country Club India Ltd.,)

    Having its registered office at

    Country Club India Ltd.,

    No.6-3-1219, Begumpet

    Hyderabad- 500 016

    (Reptd. by its Chairman &

    Managing Director)



    Also having branch offices in Bangalore at



    2. M/s. Country Vacations India Pvt. Ltd.,

    (a unit of M/s. Country Club India Ltd.,)

    Office at No.4, 3rd Floor, S.V. Towers

    Krishnanagar Industrial Layout

    DRC Post, Hosur Road, Koramangala

    Bangalore- 560 029

    O R D E R


    This is a complaint filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-, boarding expenses of Rs.9,000/-, compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh with costs and for such other reliefs.



    The brief facts of the case are that on 19/10/2008 the Op from the branch office mentioned at 1A in the cause title called C-1 over mobile phone and stated that he has won a free gift and informed him to appear in person to their office at Bangalore.

    Although in the beginning the C-1 was reluctant to approach their office but due to Op officials/staff calling numerous times and requesting, he gave it a go and appeared along with C-2 and thereafter learnt that it was plan to get them enrolled as a member in Op’s club. At the first instance they expressed their willingness not to become a member but during the course of the discussion the Op officials/staff brain washed and gave them glossy assurances and promised that they would be given a life membership with M/s. Country Club India Limited, they would be provided RCI (Resort condominiums International) enrollment for their international vocational usage, accidental insurance policy coverage for Rs.5,00,000/- and all along assured best of their professional services and also stated that the clubs were situated at exotic locations and it would be a pleasure to spend quality vacations and induced C-1 and C-2 to accept their club membership. Op finally asserted of their impeachable service network across the country and best hospitality ever and were successful in coaxing C-1 and C-2 to become their club member.

    Believing in their representations both C-1 and C-2 jointly became a member to their club i.e., with Op by paying an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- immediately vide C-1 credit card. Consequently the payment was acknowledged by the Op2 and C-1 & C-2 were made to an enter a unilateral agreement dated 19/10/2008 which is named and styled as “Country Vacations International Holiday Club Membership Purchase Agreement”, wherein C-1 & C-2 were granted membership vide Contract No.CV390041 for a period of 30 years. The Ops projection was such that those who enroll as a member with their club, will be accommodated at their convenience in any of their clubs or their affiliated clubs across country, and will be provided five to seven star facilities, hence they are distinctively ahead off all the other recreation clubs in the country.



    Subsequently, when C-1 expressed his requirement of accommodation at RA Puram, Chennai the OP initial response was that there was no accommodation and the same was occupied by other members and couldn’t afford on the specified dates but later, on several requests of C-1, Op arranged a stay at RA Puram, Chennai Property for a night and the condition of the allotted room was so pathetic that he couldn’t stay there and he immediately brought to the notice of the OP staff about the discrepancy, but none of them obliged to replace. At that point of time C-1 got know the taste of Op’s preliminary haphazard service and scant respect for customer grievance. Since C-1 is a textile Engineer by profession and he keeps on traveling to lot of different destinations across the country and abroad on professional duty he had opted the club membership so as to find places for boarding and lodging.


    On one such occasion he clearly gave a request call with ample of time to arrange his accommodation at Guindy property in a different property other than allotted previously at Chennai from 29/01/2009 to 31/01/2009 to Op. When there was no immediate response he e-mailed them but still failed to get any positive response. Thereafter C-1 has called several times to all the phone numbers including toll free numbers of Op but only he could get an automated telephone reply of getting back to him at the earliest but virtually the Op never responded, reverted and neither made any attempts to contact nor bothered to head and reply to the just requests made by the complainants thus providing themselves that Op is involved in most condemnable practices.



    It is the frustrated version of the complainants that in the beginning Op gave glossy assurances but later they have done nothing but testing their patience by defaulting repeatedly. They even are least bothered to reply e-mails sent by C-1 on the following dates: 13/01/2009, 21/01/2009, 02/02/2009, 05/02/2009, 07/02/2009 and 11/02/2009. On their failure to respond and create accommodation C-1 had to make his own arrangements of boarding and lodging at Guindy from 29th to 31st of January 2009.

    The Op are also liable to refund the expenses of Rs.9,000/- incurred by C-1 during his stay at Guindy due to non-affording the accommodation to C-1 although he was a member of Op. On 16/02/2009, C-1 finally sent an e-mail and noticed them that he was fed up with their unprofessional attitude, willful neglect/negligence exhibited to members non-performance of assured service and providing miserable and absolute deficiency of service and expressed to settle matter amicably and not affording an opportunity to him to approach the Consumer Forum for the refund of membership fees. But Op has least bother to reply or call back to any such communications sent by the complainants. Since the Op have neither responded to several accommodation of membership and refund of membership fees and therefore withholding of the membership amount of Rs.1,55,000/- without making any steps to refund the same tantamount to unfair trade practices. Hence the complainant approached this forum.



    Notices were sent to the Ops under RPAD. Notice to Ops 2 and 3 served. They were called twice but they remained absent and no one represented the Ops. Hence Ops 2 and 3 placed ex-parte. Notice sent to Op1. The acknowledgment/cover sent under RPAD to the addressee not returned inspite of completion of 30 days from the date of its dispatch. Hence, it is treated as served on Op1. Op1 remained absent and no one represented. Hence Op1 also placed ex-parte. Complainants gave their evidences by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for complainant.



    The documents produced by the complainants completely corroborates the evidence of the complainant and it discloses that complainants have paid Rs.1,55,000/- towards membership fees. When the Ops have collected the said amount with assurances of providing all facilities, it is their bounden duty to provide accommodation in the clubs and other facilities as promised by them.

    But after collecting the amount they never bothered to provide facilities in spite of request made by the complainants. The correspondence made by the complainants clearly establishes that inspite of several approaches made by the complainants Ops never bothered to respond to the correspondence made by the complainants. When they are not in a position to provide facilities as agreed under it is their bounden duty also to refund the amount paid by the complainants. Non-refund of the amount definitely amounts to deficiency in service. Ops have utilized the amounts paid by the complainants for their business purpose and at the same time the complainants were deprived of in using the said amount for which Ops have to pay the interest by way of compensation.



    These facts have not been specifically denied by the Ops. In spite of sufficient opportunities given to them they remained absent and failed to submit their statement of objections to rebut the evidence of the complainants. In fact they became ex-parte. In the absence of specific denial by the OP, the evidence given by the complainants is unchallenged.


    In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops 1 to 3. Accordingly, we pass the following order.


    O R D E R


    Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable.


    Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand only) to the complainants with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of its dispatch to till the date of realization.



    Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants towards the cost of this litigation.



    All these amounts are to be paid to the complainants within six weeks from the date of this order.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Sri.B.Harish Baliga,

    # 104, Aditya Apts,

    Nehru Avenue Cross Road,

    Lalbagh,

    Mangalore-3. …….. COMPLAINANT

    (Advocate: Sri.K.Chandrashekhara Holla.)



    VERSUS



    The Managing Director,

    Country Club (India) Ltd., #675,

    9th ‘A’ Main, Indiranagar,

    1st Stage,

    Bangalore-560 038. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

    (Opposite Party: Exparte.)

    The Complainant has become the member of the Opposite Party Club on 27.11.2007 bearing membership No.MLLM 1382 by paying Rs.15,000/-. While enrolling him as the member of the club he was assured that the Opposite Party Club at Mangalore will start functioning in the beginning of 2008 and offered free holiday package for about three days and assured that the said holiday package will give free stay in a reputed Hotel.

    The complainant wanted to avail the holiday package to Goa from 18.5.2008 to 21.5.2008 and booked the holiday package and paid Rs.2,000/- and received the Booking Request Form and he has been informed that he is required to submit his Debit/Credit Card at the Hotel at Goa and to participate in their promotional lecture program. It is submitted that, these conditions were not informed to him while submitted his Booking Request Form. After came to know the above two conditions Complainant forwarded an E-mail on 17.5.2008 to the Opposite Party and requested them to waive the conditions. The Opposite Party instead of weiving the condition on 17.5.2008 his booking was cancelled. The Complainant submits that, due to unwarranted conditions and for no valid reasons his holiday package was cancelled.

    And further alleged that, till date the Opposite Party has not opened the club in Mangalore. The Complainant paid Rs.15,000/- as a membership and he is not been able to enjoy any of the facilities as promised by the Opposite Party and submitted that the said act on the part of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice. The Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party to refund the membership fee along with interest but the Opposite Party failed to pay the same amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.15,000/- along with interest at 18% and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.


    2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party despite of serving notice, not appeared on the date of appearance and this Forum placed the Opposite Party exparte. Subsequently the case was posted for complainant evidence on 19.6.2009 and the complainant filed the evidence on the same day the case was posted for orders on merits to this day. Subsequently, i.e. the previous day on 29.6.2009 the opposite party advance the case and filed the memo of appearance by one of the counsel but not filed version and again sought time. By considering the explanation given by the opposite party the version of the opposite party treated as nil and the matter was taken up for orders on merits on the original day.


    3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

    (i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

    (ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

    (iii) What order?

    4. In support of the complaint Sri B.Harish Baliga (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint. Ex C1 to C15 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party not led any evidence.

    We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:

    Point No.(i): Affirmative

    Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
    REASONS

    5. Points No. (i) to (iii):

    In order to substantiate the allegations of the Complainant, the Complainant filed evidence as well as documents in support of his case. The documents produced by the Complainant marked as Ex.C1 to C15. On careful scrutiny of the documents placed by the Complainant i.e. the Ex.C1 is the copy of the Application Form submitted by the Complainant and Ex.C2 is the copy of the receipt dated 23.11.2007 issued by the Opposite Party proved that the Complainant became a member of the Opposite Party and paid Rs.15,000/-. The Ex.C3 is a letter dated 27.11.2007 issued by the Opposite Party confirms that the Complainant became a member having Membership No. MLLM 1382. And further the Ex.C4 dated 20.12.2007 reveals that the Complainant was issued with Laminated Membership Cards and Ex.C5 is the Booking Request Form.


    From the above documents it made us clear that the Complainant and his family availed the holiday package offered by the Opposite Party for a period of three days to Goa from 18.5.2008 to 21.5.2008 and Ex.C6 is the Pay-In-Slip dated 15.5.2008 issued by the ICICI Bank shows that the Complainant paid Rs.2,000/- as advised by them to a Hotel by name Prestige Holiday Resort at Goa and the another document i.e. Ex.C7 is the Membership Cards issued by the Opposite Party. Ex.C8 to C13 are the E-Mails dated 15.5.2008, 17.5.2008, 17.5.2008, 17.5.2008, 13.6.2008, 21.6.2008. From the above E-Mails it could be seen that the holiday package availed by the Complainant was cancelled. And further the Ex.C14 is a legal notice dated 11.3.2009 issued by the Complainant reveals that the Complainant was issued with a Opposite Party Membership and in the said membership the Complainant and his family assured that they are going to open the Club in Mangalore and also promised various facilities. But the Opposite Party failed to provide the same. Hence the Complainant called for refund Rs.15,000/- paid by him.

    The said notice was served to the Opposite Party. However, we find that from the above documents, it is proved that the Opposite Party by accepting Rs.15,000/- as membership and assured the Complainant that they are going to provide various facilities in Mangalore and the said club will start functioning in the beginning of 2008, but the above facilities were not provided by the Opposite Party till this date which amounts to deficiency in service. Under the above circumstances, we hereby direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.15,000/- along with the interest at 10% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount i.e. 23.11.2007 till the date of payment and further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed the interest is always inclusive of compensation. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.



    6. In the result, we pass the following:
    ORDER

    The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to refund Rs.15,000/- along with the interest at 10% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount i.e. 23.11.2007 till the date of payment. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    D.R.Nagaraj

    S/o D.Ramarao,

    Aged about 40 yrs,

    No.6/10, 1st Cross,

    16th Main, Balaji Layout,

    Padmanabha Nagar,

    Bangalore – 560 070.

    …. Complainant
    COMPLAINT NO. 1472 OF 2009



    Munireddy A.N.

    S/o M.Nallappa Reddy,

    Aged about 40 yrs,

    No.18, Ananthapura,

    Singanayakanahalli Post,

    Yelahanka Hobli,

    Bangalore – 560 064.

    …. Complainant
    COMPLAINT NO. 1473 OF 2009



    S.S.Shivakumar,

    S/o L.Shivanna,

    Aged about 39 yrs,

    No.70/92, 2nd Main,

    6th Cross, Maruthinagar,

    Chandra Layout,

    Bangalore – 560 078.

    …. Complainant

    COMPLAINT NO. 1474 OF 2009



    Sathyanarayana Rao M.S.

    S/o M.G.Srinivasa Rao,

    Aged about 37 yrs,

    No.881, 1st Floor, 10th Main,

    5th Cross, BTM 2nd Stage,

    Bangalore – 560 076.

    …. Complainant







    V/s



    Country Club (India Ltd.,)

    No.675, 6th ‘A’ Main,

    Indiranagar 1st Stage,

    Bangalore – 560 038.

    …. Opposite Parties



    -: ORDER:-



    Since all these complaints claiming similar relief are directed against the same Opposite Party, they are disposed off by this common order.

    2. The complainants have prayed for direction to the Opposite Party to refund the membership fee paid by each of them with interest and to pay damages.

    3. The case of the complainants is as under:-

    On the promise of Opposite Party for allotment of complimentary site measuring 1089 Sq.Ft, they become members of the Opposite Party club. The complainants in Case No.1471/2009 to 1473/2009 paid Rs.1,15,000/- each towards membership fee and the complainant in Case No.1474/2009 paid Rs.90,000/- towards membership fee. Though the payment towards membership fee was made in the year 2006-07, so-far the Opposite Party failed to allot and register the complimentary site as promised. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund the membership fee paid by each complainant and to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants in Case No.1471/2009 to 1473/2009 and Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant in Case No.1474/2009.



    4. In the version, the common contention of Opposite Party is as under:-

    At no point of time the Opposite Party rendered deficient service and therefore the question of claiming compensation does not arise. Being impressed with various offers made by the Opposite Party, the complainants expressed their willingness to become members of the Opposite Party club under the scheme known as “Mr.Cool Life Membership” and paid the non refundable membership fee as claimed in each complaint. The Opposite Party had promised free site as complimentary to the membership taken and as such the site offered was just a free gift for taking the membership. The Opposite Party allotted a site in the name of the complainants as per the allotment letters dated 25/06/2008 and 18/01/2008 allotting a particular site measuring 1089 Sq.Ft in Phase-XVIII.


    The complainants were requested to come forward for registration of the sites by paying necessary registration charges, but the complainants did not pay the registration charges till the date. It is the Opposite Party who needs to be compensated for the act of the complainants since it is incurring heavy loss by maintaining and safeguarding the allotted sites until the registration in the name of the complainants. In the latest public notice, published in Deccan Herald news paper dated 24/06/2009, the Opposite Party has undertaken speedy registration of the sites upon full payment of membership fees and registration charges.


    The registration process is going on and already 12,000 sites have been registered in various layouts in the name of the members. Even now the Opposite Party is ready to register the sites in the name of the complainants if the complainants pay the registration charges. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and as such the complaints are liable to be dismissed.



    5. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. When the matter came up for arguments, both the parties and their counsel remained absent.



    6. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



    2. Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed for in the respective complaint?

    7. Our findings are:-

    Point No(1) : In the Affirmative

    Point No(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    8. The fact that the complainants became members of the Opposite Party club by making payment of the amount as claimed in each complaint is not disputed. It is also not disputed by the Opposite Party that it had promised allotment of a free complimentary site to each member. Though the complainants claim that so-far the Opposite Party has not allotted any sites, from the copies of the documents produced in each case it is clear that the Opposite Party had issued allotment letter in favour of each complainant allotting a particular site in Phase-XVIII. Through the said allotment letter, the Opposite Party had called upon the complainants to pay certain amount towards registration fee. But the point is whether this allotment letter can be said to be in compliance with the promise made by the Opposite Party regarding the allotment of complimentary site. In our opinion, this allotment letter will not amount to compliance with the promise made by the Opposite Party. Because, the full particulars of the site allotted including the location is not disclosed in the allotment letter.


    The particulars of the site allotted, is only mentioned as Phase-XVIII. Location of the layout is not disclosed. Phase-XVIII can be anywhere either in the State of Karnataka or in any other State in India. From the cause title to the complaint, it is seen that all the complainants are residents of Bangalore. If they are allotted sites in any other District in the State of Karnataka or in any other neighboring State, they cannot be compelled to purchase site at a far off place from Bangalore. This allotment letter issued by the Opposite Party appears to be for the purpose of inducing the members to pay certain amount towards registration fee. Non-disclosing of the particulars of the site including the location will not amount to allotment of a site.


    Therefore, it is clear that though the Opposite Party induced the complainants to become members by making payment of huge amount on the promise of allotting free site, it has failed to allot the sites as promised and this act of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainants are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid towards membership fee. However, we are not convinced with the claim of the complainants for grant of damages. Awarding interest on the amount to be refunded will take care of the inconvenience suffered by the complainants. In the result, we pass the following:-



    -:ORDER:-



    1. All these complaints are ALLOWED.

    2. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- to each complainant in case No.1471/2009 to 1473/2009 and Rs.90,000/- to the complainant in case No.1474/2009 together with interest at 9% Per Annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment and also to pay costs of Rs.1,000,/- to each complainant.

    3. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.

    4. The original of this order shall be kept in complaint No.1471/2009 and the true copy thereof shall be kept in each of the above complaints.

    5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

    6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th Day of SEPTEMBER 2009.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Mr.Nawaz Pasha,

    S/o P.M.Khamaruddin,

    Aged about 25 yrs,

    Door No.930, E.W.S. II Stage,

    Yellahanka New Town,

    Bangalore.



    …. Complainant

    V/s



    Country Vacations,

    A division of Country Club of India Ltd.,

    # 4, 3rd Floor, S.V.Towers,

    Krishnanagar Industrial Layout,

    Hosur Road, Koramangala,

    Bangalore – 560 029,

    Represented by its

    Chairman and Managing Director.

    …. Opposite Party



    -: ORDER:-



    This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee together with interest at 24% Per Annum from 19/08/2008 till the date of payment and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the following grounds:-

    2. The Opposite Party induced the complainant to become a member of the club by paying Rs.1,25,000/- promising to give two plots each measuring 242 Square yards at VEDIC COUNTRY SPA, Hindupur. Believing the promise made by the Opposite Party, the complainant became member of the club by paying Rs.1,25,000/-. After making payment of Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee, he did not receive any response from the Opposite Party about the allotment of two plots and club facilities. Whenever he contacted the office of the Opposite Party, no proper response was given. Though the Opposite Party had promised that he would get the allotment letter and membership card within next four days, the same was not honored. Therefore on 25/09/2008 he demanded refund of the membership fee paid. But the Opposite Party neglected to refund the amount. Hence, the complaint.



    3. In spite of service on notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced the copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.



    4. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



    2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?





    5. Our findings are:-

    Point No(1) : In the Affirmative

    Point No(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    6. Since in spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent and has not chosen to contest the case. The material on record has remained unchallenged. The fact that the complainant has paid Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee is evident from the copies of the receipts produced by the complainant. A reading of the letter dated 19/08/2008 makes it clear that the Opposite Party had promised allotment of complimentary plot measuring 242 Square Yards. In this letter, the Opposite Party has informed the complainant that the plot would be registered in his name after completing all the government formalities involved for acquiring the land and formation of the layout. Alleging non allotment of the site, the complaint is filed on 21/07/2009. Therefore, it is clear that right from 19/08/2008, the Opposite Party has not chosen to allot any site in favour of the complainant as promised.


    This omission on the part of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the membership fee paid. However, no foundation is laid for grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint. In our opinion, awarding interest on the amount to be refunded will compensate the complainant for the inconvenience if any suffered by him. In the result, we pass the following:-









    -:ORDER:-



    1. The complaint is ALLOWED.

    2. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the complainant with interest thereon at 9% Per Annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment and also to pay costs of Rs.1,000,/- (Rs.One Thousand Only).

    3. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.

    4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

    5. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th Day of SEPTEMBER 2009.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Sathyanarayana Rao M.S.

    S/o M.G.Srinivasa Rao,

    Aged about 37 yrs,

    No.881, 1st Floor, 10th Main,

    5th Cross, BTM 2nd Stage,

    Bangalore – 560 076.

    …. Complainant







    V/s



    Country Club (India Ltd.,)

    No.675, 6th ‘A’ Main,

    Indiranagar 1st Stage,

    Bangalore – 560 038.

    …. Opposite Parties



    -: ORDER:-



    Since all these complaints claiming similar relief are directed against the same Opposite Party, they are disposed off by this common order.

    2. The complainants have prayed for direction to the Opposite Party to refund the membership fee paid by each of them with interest and to pay damages.

    3. The case of the complainants is as under:-

    On the promise of Opposite Party for allotment of complimentary site measuring 1089 Sq.Ft, they become members of the Opposite Party club. The complainants in Case No.1471/2009 to 1473/2009 paid Rs.1,15,000/- each towards membership fee and the complainant in Case No.1474/2009 paid Rs.90,000/- towards membership fee.


    Though the payment towards membership fee was made in the year 2006-07, so-far the Opposite Party failed to allot and register the complimentary site as promised. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund the membership fee paid by each complainant and to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants in Case No.1471/2009 to 1473/2009 and Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant in Case No.1474/2009.



    4. In the version, the common contention of Opposite Party is as under:-

    At no point of time the Opposite Party rendered deficient service and therefore the question of claiming compensation does not arise. Being impressed with various offers made by the Opposite Party, the complainants expressed their willingness to become members of the Opposite Party club under the scheme known as “Mr.Cool Life Membership” and paid the non refundable membership fee as claimed in each complaint. The Opposite Party had promised free site as complimentary to the membership taken and as such the site offered was just a free gift for taking the membership. The Opposite Party allotted a site in the name of the complainants as per the allotment letters dated 25/06/2008 and 18/01/2008 allotting a particular site measuring 1089 Sq.Ft in Phase-XVIII.


    The complainants were requested to come forward for registration of the sites by paying necessary registration charges, but the complainants did not pay the registration charges till the date. It is the Opposite Party who needs to be compensated for the act of the complainants since it is incurring heavy loss by maintaining and safeguarding the allotted sites until the registration in the name of the complainants.


    In the latest public notice, published in Deccan Herald news paper dated 24/06/2009, the Opposite Party has undertaken speedy registration of the sites upon full payment of membership fees and registration charges. The registration process is going on and already 12,000 sites have been registered in various layouts in the name of the members. Even now the Opposite Party is ready to register the sites in the name of the complainants if the complainants pay the registration charges. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and as such the complaints are liable to be dismissed.



    5. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. When the matter came up for arguments, both the parties and their counsel remained absent.



    6. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



    2. Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed for in the respective complaint?

    7. Our findings are:-

    Point No(1) : In the Affirmative

    Point No(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    8. The fact that the complainants became members of the Opposite Party club by making payment of the amount as claimed in each complaint is not disputed. It is also not disputed by the Opposite Party that it had promised allotment of a free complimentary site to each member.


    Though the complainants claim that so-far the Opposite Party has not allotted any sites, from the copies of the documents produced in each case it is clear that the Opposite Party had issued allotment letter in favour of each complainant allotting a particular site in Phase-XVIII. Through the said allotment letter, the Opposite Party had called upon the complainants to pay certain amount towards registration fee. But the point is whether this allotment letter can be said to be in compliance with the promise made by the Opposite Party regarding the allotment of complimentary site.


    In our opinion, this allotment letter will not amount to compliance with the promise made by the Opposite Party. Because, the full particulars of the site allotted including the location is not disclosed in the allotment letter. The particulars of the site allotted, is only mentioned as Phase-XVIII. Location of the layout is not disclosed. Phase-XVIII can be anywhere either in the State of Karnataka or in any other State in India. From the cause title to the complaint, it is seen that all the complainants are residents of Bangalore.


    If they are allotted sites in any other District in the State of Karnataka or in any other neighboring State, they cannot be compelled to purchase site at a far off place from Bangalore. This allotment letter issued by the Opposite Party appears to be for the purpose of inducing the members to pay certain amount towards registration fee. Non-disclosing of the particulars of the site including the location will not amount to allotment of a site.


    Therefore, it is clear that though the Opposite Party induced the complainants to become members by making payment of huge amount on the promise of allotting free site, it has failed to allot the sites as promised and this act of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainants are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid towards membership fee. However, we are not convinced with the claim of the complainants for grant of damages.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Mr.Nawaz Pasha,

    S/o P.M.Khamaruddin,

    Aged about 25 yrs,

    Door No.930, E.W.S. II Stage,

    Yellahanka New Town,

    Bangalore.



    …. Complainant

    V/s



    Country Vacations,

    A division of Country Club of India Ltd.,

    # 4, 3rd Floor, S.V.Towers,

    Krishnanagar Industrial Layout,

    Hosur Road, Koramangala,

    Bangalore – 560 029,

    Represented by its

    Chairman and Managing Director.

    …. Opposite Party



    -: ORDER:-



    This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee together with interest at 24% Per Annum from 19/08/2008 till the date of payment and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the following grounds:-

    2. The Opposite Party induced the complainant to become a member of the club by paying Rs.1,25,000/- promising to give two plots each measuring 242 Square yards at VEDIC COUNTRY SPA, Hindupur. Believing the promise made by the Opposite Party, the complainant became member of the club by paying Rs.1,25,000/-. After making payment of Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee, he did not receive any response from the Opposite Party about the allotment of two plots and club facilities.


    Whenever he contacted the office of the Opposite Party, no proper response was given. Though the Opposite Party had promised that he would get the allotment letter and membership card within next four days, the same was not honored. Therefore on 25/09/2008 he demanded refund of the membership fee paid. But the Opposite Party neglected to refund the amount. Hence, the complaint.



    3. In spite of service on notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced the copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.



    4. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



    2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?





    5. Our findings are:-

    Point No(1) : In the Affirmative

    Point No(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    6. Since in spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent and has not chosen to contest the case. The material on record has remained unchallenged. The fact that the complainant has paid Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee is evident from the copies of the receipts produced by the complainant. A reading of the letter dated 19/08/2008 makes it clear that the Opposite Party had promised allotment of complimentary plot measuring 242 Square Yards. In this letter, the Opposite Party has informed the complainant that the plot would be registered in his name after completing all the government formalities involved for acquiring the land and formation of the layout. Alleging non allotment of the site, the complaint is filed on 21/07/2009.


    Therefore, it is clear that right from 19/08/2008, the Opposite Party has not chosen to allot any site in favour of the complainant as promised. This omission on the part of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the membership fee paid. However, no foundation is laid for grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint. In our opinion, awarding interest on the amount to be refunded will compensate the complainant for the inconvenience if any suffered by him.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Sathyanarayana Rao M.S.

    S/o M.G.Srinivasa Rao,

    Aged about 37 yrs,

    No.881, 1st Floor, 10th Main,

    5th Cross, BTM 2nd Stage,

    Bangalore – 560 076.

    …. Complainant







    V/s



    Country Club (India Ltd.,)

    No.675, 6th ‘A’ Main,

    Indiranagar 1st Stage,

    Bangalore – 560 038.

    …. Opposite Parties



    -: ORDER:-



    Since all these complaints claiming similar relief are directed against the same Opposite Party, they are disposed off by this common order.

    2. The complainants have prayed for direction to the Opposite Party to refund the membership fee paid by each of them with interest and to pay damages.

    3. The case of the complainants is as under:-

    On the promise of Opposite Party for allotment of complimentary site measuring 1089 Sq.Ft, they become members of the Opposite Party club. The complainants in Case No.1471/2009 to 1473/2009 paid Rs.1,15,000/- each towards membership fee and the complainant in Case No.1474/2009 paid Rs.90,000/- towards membership fee. Though the payment towards membership fee was made in the year 2006-07, so-far the Opposite Party failed to allot and register the complimentary site as promised. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund the membership fee paid by each complainant and to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants in Case No.1471/2009 to 1473/2009 and Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant in Case No.1474/2009.



    4. In the version, the common contention of Opposite Party is as under:-

    At no point of time the Opposite Party rendered deficient service and therefore the question of claiming compensation does not arise. Being impressed with various offers made by the Opposite Party, the complainants expressed their willingness to become members of the Opposite Party club under the scheme known as “Mr.Cool Life Membership” and paid the non refundable membership fee as claimed in each complaint. The Opposite Party had promised free site as complimentary to the membership taken and as such the site offered was just a free gift for taking the membership. The Opposite Party allotted a site in the name of the complainants as per the allotment letters dated 25/06/2008 and 18/01/2008 allotting a particular site measuring 1089 Sq.Ft in Phase-XVIII.


    The complainants were requested to come forward for registration of the sites by paying necessary registration charges, but the complainants did not pay the registration charges till the date. It is the Opposite Party who needs to be compensated for the act of the complainants since it is incurring heavy loss by maintaining and safeguarding the allotted sites until the registration in the name of the complainants. In the latest public notice, published in Deccan Herald news paper dated 24/06/2009, the Opposite Party has undertaken speedy registration of the sites upon full payment of membership fees and registration charges.


    The registration process is going on and already 12,000 sites have been registered in various layouts in the name of the members. Even now the Opposite Party is ready to register the sites in the name of the complainants if the complainants pay the registration charges. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and as such the complaints are liable to be dismissed.



    5. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. When the matter came up for arguments, both the parties and their counsel remained absent.



    6. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



    2. Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed for in the respective complaint?

    7. Our findings are:-

    Point No(1) : In the Affirmative

    Point No(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    8. The fact that the complainants became members of the Opposite Party club by making payment of the amount as claimed in each complaint is not disputed. It is also not disputed by the Opposite Party that it had promised allotment of a free complimentary site to each member.


    Though the complainants claim that so-far the Opposite Party has not allotted any sites, from the copies of the documents produced in each case it is clear that the Opposite Party had issued allotment letter in favour of each complainant allotting a particular site in Phase-XVIII. Through the said allotment letter, the Opposite Party had called upon the complainants to pay certain amount towards registration fee. But the point is whether this allotment letter can be said to be in compliance with the promise made by the Opposite Party regarding the allotment of complimentary site.


    In our opinion, this allotment letter will not amount to compliance with the promise made by the Opposite Party. Because, the full particulars of the site allotted including the location is not disclosed in the allotment letter. The particulars of the site allotted, is only mentioned as Phase-XVIII. Location of the layout is not disclosed. Phase-XVIII can be anywhere either in the State of Karnataka or in any other State in India. From the cause title to the complaint, it is seen that all the complainants are residents of Bangalore.


    If they are allotted sites in any other District in the State of Karnataka or in any other neighboring State, they cannot be compelled to purchase site at a far off place from Bangalore. This allotment letter issued by the Opposite Party appears to be for the purpose of inducing the members to pay certain amount towards registration fee. Non-disclosing of the particulars of the site including the location will not amount to allotment of a site.


    Therefore, it is clear that though the Opposite Party induced the complainants to become members by making payment of huge amount on the promise of allotting free site, it has failed to allot the sites as promised and this act of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainants are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid towards membership fee. However, we are not convinced with the claim of the complainants for grant of damages.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Mr.Nawaz Pasha,

    S/o P.M.Khamaruddin,

    Aged about 25 yrs,

    Door No.930, E.W.S. II Stage,

    Yellahanka New Town,

    Bangalore.



    …. Complainant

    V/s



    Country Vacations,

    A division of Country Club of India Ltd.,

    # 4, 3rd Floor, S.V.Towers,

    Krishnanagar Industrial Layout,

    Hosur Road, Koramangala,

    Bangalore – 560 029,

    Represented by its

    Chairman and Managing Director.

    …. Opposite Party



    -: ORDER:-



    This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee together with interest at 24% Per Annum from 19/08/2008 till the date of payment and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the following grounds:-

    2. The Opposite Party induced the complainant to become a member of the club by paying Rs.1,25,000/- promising to give two plots each measuring 242 Square yards at VEDIC COUNTRY SPA, Hindupur. Believing the promise made by the Opposite Party, the complainant became member of the club by paying Rs.1,25,000/-. After making payment of Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee, he did not receive any response from the Opposite Party about the allotment of two plots and club facilities. Whenever he contacted the office of the Opposite Party, no proper response was given. Though the Opposite Party had promised that he would get the allotment letter and membership card within next four days, the same was not honored. Therefore on 25/09/2008 he demanded refund of the membership fee paid. But the Opposite Party neglected to refund the amount. Hence, the complaint.



    3. In spite of service on notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced the copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.



    4. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



    2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?





    5. Our findings are:-

    Point No(1) : In the Affirmative

    Point No(2) : As per final order,

    for the following:-

    -:REASONS:-

    6. Since in spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent and has not chosen to contest the case. The material on record has remained unchallenged. The fact that the complainant has paid Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership fee is evident from the copies of the receipts produced by the complainant. A reading of the letter dated 19/08/2008 makes it clear that the Opposite Party had promised allotment of complimentary plot measuring 242 Square Yards. In this letter, the Opposite Party has informed the complainant that the plot would be registered in his name after completing all the government formalities involved for acquiring the land and formation of the layout.


    Alleging non allotment of the site, the complaint is filed on 21/07/2009. Therefore, it is clear that right from 19/08/2008, the Opposite Party has not chosen to allot any site in favour of the complainant as promised. This omission on the part of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the membership fee paid. However, no foundation is laid for grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint. In our opinion, awarding interest on the amount to be refunded will compensate the complainant for the inconvenience if any suffered by him.
  • edited January 2010
    Guys Country Club is a fraud company
    That Mustache guy on it posters claiming to be dead YSR 's brother is a thief.
    Its marketing department is run by goons.

    Once i just gave an audience to one of its executive "Babji" he said cool membership blah blah...land near BIAL but clearly i was not interested. But he told me "if u r not interested u can withdraw later or transfer etc", I said no. then he told me just to give an application so i did for his sake they ll call me later to confirm. He took a pencil copy of front side my credit card on a charge slip saying it ll be for verification in turn stole my cvv number and they made unauthorised transaction of 60K on my card without my knowledge and it was online and at that time one year back verified by visa code was not there.

    Same day after getting sms alert i called bank asked them to withhold the transaction they said they cant its approved and mode of transaction is online they advised me to raise a dispute, so that they will inquire about it and closure of the dispute, inquiry and settlement in favor of any party takes 90 days. So I raised a dispute with my bank for the 60k transaction and had got blocked my card and got replacement, but I was not too sure of anything ll happen on bank side as it was first exp.

    I called Country Club scolded them asked them money back there was this manager in office called B.Anil Kumar (B in his name stands for what you can easily guess). Everybody in the office is a goon and anti socials. He gave me a later in writing that he ll transfer my membership in 90 days from the date provided i take full membership by paying full money that is 145k, i was worried but another 85k transaction was made on another card, i trusted that B. B also said all transaction are valid which was not the case, also showed me some illegal documents and pictures saying all is fine they are clean.

    During those 90days I was following up with them to transfer my membership and refund my money, clearly nothing was happening in turn I was getting calls to pay 15k for registration i used to scold the caller because clearly i didn’t want any land or membership i want refund. After 45 days i got temporary refund from my bank for the 60 k transaction, But i was still pursuing them most of the time that B manger used to hide or unavailable. After end of 90 days also transfer did not happen i was ferocious went sat in the office, and what they ll tell all sort rule laws framed by them how to cheat others all of which is just rubbish, they even behaved badly.


    Then few days after end of 90 days an agent from my bank visited me regarding settlement of dispute and that I had to sign some forms, from him I got to know dispute is closed in my favor 60 k refund is permanent, he himself told Country club is fraud every month they are getting 4/5 cases like this from country club customers. He advised me to go for dispute for 2nd 85 k transaction also if it is not 6 months from date of transaction.

    All this had happened from 28th Dec 2008 to 6th April 2009. So I did raise a dispute for 2nd transaction of 85k immediately and got refund from 2nd bank in 90 days.

    Guess what I even had got around 7k from country club during that time after hard pursuing though most of it went as interest for 2nd bank transaction. In the hindsight I wish I had paid my bank on time I would have made 7k, But they should compensate me financially more for all those harassment and tension one should sue them.

    I ll definitely lend my support though I have nothing to do with it any more.
  • edited March 2010
    Hi,

    I become member of Country Vacations in Sept 2008 by paying INR 75,000 in Hyderabad with all false promises. I had made an initial payment of INR 30,000 and I was told that remaining amount of INR 45000 can be paid from a HDFC credit card in 15 EMI's. I managed that through a friends credit card but when the credit card statement came I was informed that the amount of 45000 had to be paid in 1 go itself and there was no provision of EMI's for Country Vaccations. I was promised a plot as well, but the land allotment (gift) copy never came till date.

    When I approached Country Vacations for cancellation of membership they have said it can not be cancelled and that I need to pay another INR 10,000 towards membership.

    I have called Country Vacations on various occasions to enquire about cancellation procedures but they keep on giving me a different number each time, and keep on transferring my calls from one person to another.

    I want to cancel my membership for the below mentioned reasons.

    The television news & the articles in daily news papers in recent times has revealed a lot about how Country clubs is deceiving the people by giving false the promises while signing-up for membership.

    Initially I was also given promises like a plot will be allotted but I never received the plot allotment document.

    When I started enquiring about cancellation of membership, I was surprised to know that Country Vaccations officers do not entertain my complaints and just keep on transferring me from on no. to another.

    The customer care services, one of the worst services I have ever experienced in my life. For long time there will be no response and when I get the line they simply point the fingers to other persons.

    The above reasons have raised my concerns about the authenticity about Country club, hence I would like to cancel my membership and request Consumer Court to help me get my membership fee which I have paid against my membership.

    Kindly look into it and help us so that i can get my money back.



    Thanks & Regards,
    Mandeep Kumar Markandey
  • edited October 2010
    I have taken a 5 year membership for Country Club. They have offered a two week vacation every year and was told that the vacation will be accrued if we dont opt for the vacation in an year. Today i have received a call saying that we need to pay maintenance fee to accrue the vacations.
Sign In or Register to comment.