Karnataka

Dakshina Kannada

cc/113/2013

1. Mr. Sebastain Norhona - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Authorized Signatory Country Vacation Country Club India - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. cc/113/2013
 
1. 1. Mr. Sebastain Norhona
S/o. Norhona of age years, Robita Behind Jesus & Mary Convent, New Monkeystand Road Mangalore
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1. The Authorized Signatory Country Vacation Country Club India
Opp Fisheries College Yekkur Post Mangalore
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Vishweshwara Bhat D PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. T.C.Rajashekar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sharadamma.H.G MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 18 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 18th January 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

  SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

  SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G              : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.113/2013

(Admitted on 20.04.2013)

1. Mr. Sebastain Norhona,

    S/o Norhona

    of age years

    Robita Behind Jesus & Mary

    Convent, New Monkeystand Road

    MANGALORE.

2. Mrs. Prescilla Norhnoa,

    W/o. Sebastain Norohanna

    of age years

    ‘Robita’ Behind Jesus & Mary

     Convent, New Monkeystand Road

     MANGALORE.

                                                                                    ….. COMPLAINANTS

(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri SD)

VERSUS

1. The Authorized Signatory,

    Country vacation

    Country Club India

    Opp: Fisheries College

     Yekkur Post, Mangalore.

2. Shobha Shetty

    The Authorised Signatory

    To 2B, 3rd Floor

    Crystal ARC, Balmatta Road

     Mangalore.

3. Umesh Reedy, Country Club

    Regd. Office : 8.2.703

    Amrutha Valley Road No.12

    Bangara Hills, JHyderbad  500 034

                                                                      ….......OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1, No.2 & No.3: Sri IKS)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainants contend believing sugary asseverations and asseverated of opposite party the complainants took membership of Country Club Mangalore in 2008. In 2008 while securing membership opposite party No.2 asseverated and represented to complainants that their membership fee would be include a complimentary free site where the Vedic Country, Spa, Project Kool in Bangalore and it was required of complainants to pay Rs.15,000/ towards the site confirmation and administration charges including of registration Stamp paper fees, registration expenses with other maintenance charges for period of 30 months.  Hence complainants paid Rs.1,25,000/ to opposite party No.2 by cheque on 4.6.2008.  As per various communications and bills opposite party shall only bear life member ship cards in Mangalore from 2008 up to 2013 and have registered in a site in complainant’s favour.  Contending that opposite party No.2 had dodged issue of site registration on one or other pretext due to severe financial crunch as such the complainant demanded the refund of their money of Rs.1,25,000 given to opposite party No.2 with interest.  For failure to register it in complainants name alleging deficiency in service on failure with comply demand made through seeks remedies mentioned in the complaint.

II.   Opposite parties in the written version it is contended that opposite party No.1 introduced the scheme with MLLM Membership wherein the members can avail club facilities and no complementary plot with what is given to the member and utilize the club facilities.     Complainant No.1 applied to the Membership paid Rs.15,000/ as membership fee and obtained membership MLLM 987 itself.  Under the MLLM complainant No.1 had liability to get one complimentary plot and opposite party allotted complimentary plot No. 1052.  But complainant had not paid the balance amount of Rs.20,000/ towards the registration of complimentary site. Opposite party is ready to execute Gift deed in respect of one complainant site subject to payment of the balance amount.  Complainant No.2 had applied the membership and paid the Rs.1,25,000/ towards membership fee with various cheques and was issued membership card by opposite party club.  Even she is entitled for plot but has to pay Rs.20,000/ towards registration charges.  The sites agreed to be provided by opposite party is only complimentary offer made by opposite party No.1 about which a paper publication was taken out in Deccan Herald and Prajavaani dated 28.05.2011 and the sites agreed to be given was as complimentary site to its member by way of gift.  There is no right to get redressal under the Consumer Protection Act.  Allotment of complimentary plot was an additional attraction to take a membership but not a contract.  The offer of complimentary plot to the member under the Kool Club Scheme is totally separate and has nothing to do with the fee paid for membership.  Hence the complainant being a consumer in relationship to the membership of the opposite party but not in relation to additional benefit of the complimentary plot.  Allegation that opposite party is obliged to perform part of the undertaking subject to payment of the balance amount of Rs.20,000/ it is also alleged that their claim for compensation raised in the breach of contract is to be filed before Civil Court and not before the Forum.

2.      As per clause 8 of the terms and conditions in case of amount fee is not reemitted within 45 days from the allotment of the membership, allotted if any would be cancelled or ignore membership without assigning any reasons. In case complainant pay registration charges and AMC charges of Rs.20,000/ for each plots opposite party are ready to get their register the complimentary plots at Vedic Spa, 7th Extension at Padiparthi Village, Hindupur Taluk, Ananthapur District. Hence seeks dismissal.

3.     In support of the above complainants Mr. Sebastain Norhona filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C13 as detailed in the annexure. Mrs. Prescilia Norhnoa also filed affidavit evidence as CW2.   On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Venkatesh Varma (RW1) Assistant Administrative Manager, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below.

In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

  1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
  2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
  3. What order?

     The learned counsel for opposite party filed notes of arguments.   We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of opposite parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:

               Point No.  (i): Affirmative

              Point No.  (ii): Negative

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

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):  The complainants are members of opposite party club is not in dispute, that opposite party club agreed to provide a site each as a complimentary site to the members namely the complainants is also not disputed by opposite parties.  It was argued by learned counsel for opposite parties that and it is a contention of the opposite parties that the site agreed to be given as a complimentary as an intrinsic and not part of the membership.  Even though opposite party is took a contention of taking out paper publication calling for membership offering a free site as complimentary to the members in 2 daily newspapers Deccan Herald and Prajavaani copies of the publication are not produced by them.  Hence what was the offer made is not before us.

2.     In this case documents produced by the complainants are not marked hence marked now at Ex.C1 to C13.   As seen from the documents produced by the complainants Ex.C7 the letter addressed to complainant No.2 dated 4.6.2008 in notes mentions allotment of complimentary plot at Coconut Grove Vedic Spa and about requirement to pay 15,000/ towards registration for 2.5 years maintenance charges and incidental charges.  Ex.C9 is letter of allotment by opposite party No.1 to complainant No.1 dated 8.8.08 mentioning that they alloted a complimentary site at Country Spa project to him and mentioned that he is required to pay Rs.20,000/ towards site confirmation and administrative charges.  Thus ongoing through these documents it is clear that the claim of opposite parties the allotment of site was only intrusive and not to a customer cannot be accepted.  This is by considering that the complainants are required to pay the maintenance charges to opposite parties.  That opposite parties have not registered the site promised to complainant and on that count when the complainant demanded the refund of the amounts paid opposite parties have refused to comply leading to a dispute between the complainants the consumers and the opposite parties the service providers as contemplated under section 2 (1)(e) of the C P Act.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No.(ii): Even as per the evidence of complainants there was no agreement entered into between complainants on the one side and the opposite party No.1 on the other.   In respect of the sites to be given to complainants by opposite party No.1 this is evidence from the reply to the interrogatories furnished by opposite party No.1.  In fact it is not the case of opposite parties that there was an agreement between the parties in respect of these two sites given to complainants by opposite party No.1 the club.

2.     In the case on hand the complainants have for failure of the opposite parties to execute registered deed.  In respect to the sites sought refund of the amounts paid by them to opposite parties in respect of these site admitting the complainants paid Rs.1,25,000/ to opposite parties. 

3.      As seen from Ex.C2 Rs.15,000/ was paid by complainant No.2 to opposite parties club towards membership.  Ex.C3 is also a receipt issued to complainant No.2 it is dated 4.6.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ the amount was paid by cheque.  Ex.C4 is receipt issued by opposite parties to complainants No.2 for rs. 1,10,000 it is dated 26.6.2006.  Cheque number is mentioned at Ex.C4 and C3 are one and the same 240277.  Hence it is a single payment. 

4.     As mentioned earlier even according to complainants No.1 version in the evidence there was not agreement in respect of the allotment of site and whether who should boot the registration expences in respect of the transfer of the deed is the immovable properties to the name of the complainants.  Hence Ex.C7 and C9 the first one letter dated 4.6.2008 addressed to complainant No.2 and second one dated 8.8.2008 addressed to complainant No.1 by opposite parties mentioned about allotment of sites to them.  At Ex.C7 addressed to complainant No.2 there is mention that the original writing of balance of Rs.1,25,000/ was cancelled by opposite party No.1 with seal and signature.  Accepting mention requirement to pay annual administrative charges of Rs.3000/ there is no mention of requirement to pay registration charges.  Ex.C7 dated 04.6.2008 of opposite parties to complainants to mention allotment of complimentary free site and required to pay Rs.15,000/ towards confirmation of administration charge inclusive it includes of stamp paper for registration and along with the maintenance charges 30 days it required the amount to be paid within 30 days.  Similarly at Ex.C9 also identical wordings are used except in respect of Rs.15,000/ Rs.20,000/ is mentioned. 

5.     It is not the case of complainants that they paid this amount of Rs. 15,000/ and Rs.20,000/ in respect of the Ex.C7 and C9 at any time to opposite parties.  It is none of the case of complainants that there was an agreement between the parties in respect of the site and how it should be administered or registered.  In fact even the complainants did not produced the newspaper publication mentioned earlier even thought in the complainants itself they make mention about the same.  As such the complainants cannot escape from liability to pay the registration charges of Rs.15,000/ and Rs.20,000/ respectively as mentioned at Ex.C7 and Ex.C9.

6.     In the circumstance the claim of complainants for refund of the amounts advanced to opposite parties in our opinion it is not justified.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties towards complainants. Hence the question of ordering the refund of the amount paid by complainants to opposite parties does not arise.  Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                                       The complaint is dismissed.

      Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 10 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th January 2017)

             MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)         (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum         D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore           Additional Bench, Mangalore

                   MEMBER

      (SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G)

  D.K. District Consumer Forum                   

   Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:

CW1  Mr. Sebastain Norhona

CW2  Mrs. Prescilla Norhnoa

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:

Ex.C1: Membership Cards of complainant No.1 and No.2

Ex.C2: Receipt for payment

Ex.C3: Receipt for payment

Ex.C4: Receipt for payment

Ex.C5: Annual Maintenance charges bill reminder

Ex.C6: Letter of Allotment

Ex.C7: Communication letter

Ex.C8: Annual Maintenance charges bill reminder

Ex.C9: Letter of Allotment

Ex.C10: Communication letter

Ex.C11: Communication letter

Ex.C12: Communication letter

Ex.C13: Legal notice with acknowledgement and receipts

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mr. Venkatesh Varma, Assistant Administrative Manager

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Copy of the application form

Ex.R2: Copy of the Allotment letters

Ex.R3: Copy of the reminders

 

Dated: 18.01.2017                                    PRESIDENT                                                      

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Vishweshwara Bhat D]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. T.C.Rajashekar]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sharadamma.H.G]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.