DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __57 _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_2.5.2017 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 11.6.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Prasenjit Sarkar, son of late Narayan Chandra Sarkar of Vill. & P.O Dhapdhapi, P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas
O.P/O.Ps : Country Vacation Division of Country Club India Ltd. Chanakyapuri-the Country Club, Canning Road, Ramnagar-2, P.O South Ramnagar, P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743387.
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased the Membership of Country Vacation Division of Country Club of India Ltd. i.e O.P-1 on payment of Club Member Fee of Rs.80,000/-. He also paid Rs.20,000/- as annual maintenance cost to O.P-1. O.P-1 agreed to extend the facilities of holidays comprising two nights and three days for two years to the complainant and the members of his family. Thereafter, on 8.4.2017 , the complainant booked a room for vacation purpose at Chanakyapuri Country Club Resort at Baruipur. He went there with his family and the room was also provided to him by the O.P company. But what caused embarrassment to the complainant is the odd looking and nasty conduct of the other members of the club. The complainant protested against such behavior of the other members of the Club. He also wrote to the head office of the said Club. But none of them had adhered to the grievance of the complainant and, therefore, the complainant wants to withdraw his membership from the O.P-1 company. He has filed ,therefore, the instant case praying for return of the money deposited in the Club of O.P-1 company as fee for membership and also for compensation. Hence, this case.
The O.P company made appearance in this case. It has not filed any written statement and thereby paving the way for expert hearing in the case.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Now to see whether the case is at all maintainable in law. Now to see whether the complainant is a consumer in accordance with the provisions of C.P Act, 1986.
The complainant has paid the subscription for membership as goes his own version in the complaint. A payment for membership can never be regarded as a consideration money for any kind of service and this being so, the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer within the provisions of C.P
Act, 1986. Further , if it be assumed for a moment that the complainant is a consumer, still, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The service has been provided to the complainant by the O.P company. The O.P company provided the room to the complainant , but the problem arose with the opprobrious behavior of the other members of the O.P company. It is well known that such behaviours are proverbial in such kind of Club and the complainant should have thought it before acquisition of the membership of that Club.
On perusal of the agreement which is concluded between the complainant and the O.P company, it is found that the membership fee is non-refundable. This being so, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of membership fee i.e Rs.80,000/- from the O.P company. As the service has been provided to the complainant by the O.P company, we fail to find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and as such the complainant appears to be not entitled to relief as prayed for . Non-payment of money to one, who is not entitled to get it, is not deficiency in service.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed exparte against the O.P , but without any cost.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
