Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1.      The complainant No.1  Sri. Thanu Prashanth and complainant No.2 Smt. Kousalya .M have filed this complaint against opposite party No.1 Country Club India Ltd., Hyderabad.  Opposite party No.2 Country Vacations, Mysore praying to direct the opposite parties to return back the membership amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 25.06.2016 till payment.

2.   The brief facts are that:-

The complainant is working is a businessman in Mysore and wanted to invest for the future benefits of his family members.Opposite party No.2 approached them as a reputed club providing facility for the recreation of the member and to provide lucky dip facility in various public exhibitions and one fine day the complainant got a phone call from opposite party No.2 informing that he won a lucky price in order to claim the said price the complainant to meet the opposite party No.2.Therefore the complainants have approached opposite party No.2 and the opposite party canvassed that club is a reputed Club will provide best of best facility to its members and brain washed the complainant believing the fanciful words on 25.06.2016 the complainant was forced to purchase membership of the opposite party No.2 and has paid Rs.75,000/- towards membership fee to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 issued receipt No.0616-CVMY-3950 for Rs.50,000/- dated 27.06.2016, No.1016-CVMY-3942 Rs.25,000/- dated 26.06.2016 and the complainant forced to execute membership agreement and the opposite party No.2 promised that annual fee of Rs.7,500/- to be payableby complainant and the membership is a life time membership.The complainants have paid the said amount and executed agreement, but the assurance of all opposite parties was not at all fulfilled the complainant was asked to pay annual fee of Rs.7,500/- and the complainant came to know that the membership is not a life time membership.Therefore the complainant was not ready to accept the culture and activities of opposite party and decided to withdraw his membership and sent E-mail on 26.10.2018 to opposite party and requested the opposite party No.2 to return the member ship fee, but opposite party did not yield to the request of complainant.On 02.04.2019 complainant issued legal notice to opposite party to return back amount paid, in spite of service of notice, the opposite party did not pay the membership amount.Hence, this complaint.

3.    After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties.  In response to notice opposite parties appeared before this Commission through their counsel, but not filed their version and affidavit.

4.         The complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as PW.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to 4.

5.      We have heard the arguments of complainant counsel.  Opposite party and counsel were not present and not addressed arguments on behalf of opposite parties.

6.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complaint of the complainant is maintainable?
2.  What order?

7.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :-Not maintainable;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.   Point No.1:-   The complainant got marked Exhibit P.1 purchase agreement for country vacations dated 25.06.2016 and also produced Exhibit P.2 the documents about payment details.  As per Exhibit P.2 it is clear that the complainant had paid Rs.75,000/- to opposite party on 26.06.2016 and the opposite party acknowledged the receipt of said amount from the complainant.  As per the terms and conditions of purchase agreement dated 25.06.2016 the membership fee is not refundable under any circumstances and that the membership fee is not refundable deposit.  The complainants after going through the terms and conditions of Exhibit P.1 the purchase agreement have subscribed their signature on the same admitting the terms and conditions of purchase agreement.  When they subscribed their signature on purchase agreement after going through it carefully, it is crystal clear that the complainant understood the terms and conditions that membership fee is not refundable under any circumstances and membership fee is not refundable deposit.  More over, the complaint was filed on 19.08.2019 and the agreement was entered into between the complainants and opposite parties on 25.06.2016.  After lapse of 3 years 2 months from the date of execution of purchase agreement dated 25.06.2016 the complainants have come up with this complaint beyond the period of limitation.  The complainants ought to have filed the complaint within the period of 2 years from the date of execution of purchase agreement dated 25.06.2016, but they had filed the complaint beyond the period of 2 years, so prima-facie it is crystal clear that the complaint has not been filed within the period of limitation and the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation.  On this ground it can be held that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.  The complainant has contended that they had sent E-mail dated 26.10.2018 after 2 years from the date of execution of purchase agreement dated 25.06.2016 and also issued legal notice dated 02.04.2019 after lapse of 2 years from the date of execution of purchase agreement dated 25.06.2016.

9.      Mere issuance of E-mail dated 26.10.2018 and legal notice dated 02.04.2019 after lapse of 2 years from the date of execution of purchase agreement dated 25.06.2016 does not constitute limitation and cause of action.

10.      The Hon’ble National Commission in the decision reported in 1(2016) CPJ 198 (NC) has observed that section 24(a), 21(a) (o) limitation within the 2 years complainant plea that cause of action arose when legal notice sent to opposite party cannot be accepted and merely sending notice does not constitute the cause of action nor does it extend period of limitation.

11.      In another decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017 (1) CPR 284 (NC) wherein it is stated that C.P. Act 1986 section 17, 19 and 21 limitation there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of delay.  Hence, application filed for condonation of delay liable to be dismissed and limitation to file complainant does not extend by subsequent notice given.

12. So from the afore cited respected citations of Hon’ble National Commission it is crystal clear that the E-mail sent  beyond the period of limitation and legal notice issued to opposite party beyond the period of limitation does not constitute cause of action and limitation does not extend.

13.      As we have already stated above, the present complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation of 2 years and not filed within the period of limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant.  In view of the complaint was came to be filed beyond the period of limitation.  The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, we answer point No.1 as not maintainable.

14. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

     The complaint of the complainants is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

     Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 10^th  March, 2021)