<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2805/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. V.Shanthi DeviW/o V.S.R. Moorty,2) V.S.R. Moorty,F-306, Architha Daffodil Apts.# 495,17th Cross, Ideal HomesRaja Rajeswari Nagar,Bangalore – 560 098V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,Country Vacations,A division of Country Club (I) Ltd.,# 102, 1st Floor, No.48, S & S Chambers,Bangalore – 560 001.Advocate – Sri. Purushothaman K.N.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant No.1 is wife of complainant No.2. The agents of OP approached them on 02.10.2008 and convinced them that if they became the member of “Country Vacations” a scheme floated by the OP they will be benefited in good number of ways and they will have advantages. OP officials promised to return what ever the deposit complainant make in 4 or 5 folds and also offer a free complimentary plot measuring 1089 square feet. Complainant’s were yet to make up their mind whether to became the member or not but due to inducement caused by the OP agents they were forced to pay Rs.50,000/- on 02.10.2008 and Rs.65,000/- on 05.10.2008. OP encashed the said cheques and entered into an agreement. When complainant shown the said agreement to their Advocate they were shocked and surprised to hear that it is unenforceable. Complainant’s felt that they are duped. Immediately they requested the OP to refund what ever the amount that they have paid. But their requests and demands went in futile. Complainants felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence filed this complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant’s having understood the terms and conditions and the scheme floated by the OP voluntarily became the member and paid the amount. At no point of time OP officials have ever promised about the refund of the said amount in four or five folds much less to give complimentary free plot. The other allegations of the complainant are false and frivolous. Complainant enjoyed the benefits of OP club now come up with the false and frivolous allegations. The relief sought is pre-mature. Neither there is any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is not at dispute that the complainant became the member of the scheme floated by the OP in the name and style “Country Vacations”. According to the complainants OP officials promised them that what ever the investment they make will be repaid in four or five folds and a complimentary free plot measuring 1089 square feet will be granted to them. Complainant trusted the words of the OP officials. Though they are yet to make up their mind whether to invest or not but still OP agents forcibly took one cheque for Rs.50,000/- on 02.10.2008 and another cheque for Rs.65,000/- on 05.10.2008. Both the cheques are encashed. Of course OP admits the receipt of the said amount.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP collected such a huge amount and executed certain amount when they shown the said agreement to their Advocate they were shocked to hear that it is unenforcible as there is no concluded contract. Under such circumstances immediately they approached the OP to refund the amount paid by them without waste of time. Correspondence made in that regard are produced.<br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant, which finds support from the contents of the above said undisputed documents. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. It is much stated by the OP that complainant having understood the terms and conditions of the agreement became the party to the same. We have also gone through the copy of the agreement.<br /> <br /> 9. As it is there is no personal ill will or grudge between the complainant and the OP so as to disbelieve their version. On the other hand the approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. By making false promises OP rather forced the complainant’s to invest their hard-earned money. After the receipt of the said money they failed to keep up their promise and opted to the hostile attitude. Complainants for no fault of theirs are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that there is a substantial proof of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances complainants are entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from November 2008 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />