Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/199/2013

N. KRISHNARAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD., THE VOICE PRESIDENT - Opp.Party(s)

K. CHOCKALINGAM

21 Jan 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

                Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

                                                         TMT. Dr.S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                             MEMBER  

                                                  

F.A.No.199/2013

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.381/2008, dated 06.03.2013 on the file of the District Commission, Chennai (South))

 

 FRIDAY, THE 21^st DAY OF JANUARY 2022

N. Krishnaraj,

S/o. P.K. Natarajan,

No.13/23, Prithvi Avenue,

2^nd Street, Abhiramapuram,

Chennai – 18.                                                              Appellants/Complainant

 

                                                

                    - Vs –

1.   The Vice President,

      M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd.,   

      No. 78, Block 5,

      Real Diamond Building,

      Mount Road, Guindy,

      Chennai – 32. 

 

2.   The Chairman & Managing Director,

      M/s.  Country Club (India) Ltd.,

      No.8-2-703, Amutha Valley Road No.12

      Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,

      Andhra Pradesh – 500 034.                                     Respondents/Opposite Parties 

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant              :  M/s. K. Chokkalingam, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties    :  M/s. V.T. Narendran, Advocate.  

             This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 24.12.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.    

1.         This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) made in C.C.No.381/2008, dated 06.03.2013, dismissing the complaint.        

2.        For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South).       

3.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal is as follows;-

          The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he is a senior citizen and reputed licensed civil surveyor and engineer.  On 12.04.2001, he paid Rs.22,500/- to the opposite parties after hearing big claims by the marketing executives of the 1^st opposite party about the appreciating value of their club and the advantages of the complainant being one of the premier members of the opposite parties club.  The complainant was allotted the Membership No. CNSCL – K7 of the opposite parties.  As there was no functioning of Gym or even a good restaurant, the amount of Rs.22,500/- already paid by the complainant to the opposite party got blocked without any return on investment or facility availed by the complainant of any sort for the last few years. After 5 years, again the first opposite party’s marketing executives Md. Ibrahim & Ashok approached the complainant and requested to book Mango Grove plots.  Initially, the complainant did not entertain them.  Later, the complainant was told that a plot of land in Thiruvallur would be registered in the complainant’s name at a very cheap price @ Rs.56,120/- including registration and there was no need to pay anymore amount or hidden cost, in addition, two up and down Goa air tickets would be given to him free of cost, besides free week long stays in different locations for many years stating that  it was being offered to the complainant by the management of the opposite parties having considered the pains of no returns since last many years to the premier life members of the opposite parties like the complainant. Believing the words, the complainant paid Rs.1,12,240/- for 2 plots of Mango Grove plots bearing plot Nos.A45 & A-46.  After receipt of Rs.1,12,240/- apart from the earlier payment of Rs.22,500/-, the complainant was told that he would again have to pay an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- towards registration which is quite contrary to their earlier commitments.  But, thereafter nothing happened. Now, a sum of Rs.1,34,740/- was blocked with the opposite parties and neither land registration nor any air ticket nor any free stay coupon etc., were given to the complainant despite many phone calls made by the complainant. Hence, the complainant demanded the opposite party to return all the money that he paid so far including the membership fee.  Mr. Narayana Patra, marketing person of the 1^st opposite party personally visited the complainant and told him that actions have already been taken to cancel the plot allotments on Plot Nos.45 & 46, originally allotted to the complainant’s name and they were waiting for the sanction letter from their Head Office to return the money paid against the land i.e. Rs.1,12,240/- and further it was assured that it was his personal responsibility to get the demand draft in the name of the complainant for Rs.1,12,240/-. While the complainant was waiting to receive the alleged demand draft, on 10.05.2007 Mr. Narayana Patra came and informed the complainant that the alleged Demand Draft for Rs.1,12,240/- would be brought by him immediately after receipt of  Head Office sanction letter which was expected at any moment from them.   However, the opposite party life membership of the complainant is being continued as a special case it was agreed to allot the complainant a plot for Rs.46,120/- instead of their earlier claim of Rs.66,120/- per plot.  No more Maintenance or Hidden Cost would be collected from the complainant and that day was the last date for making that payment. When the complainant told him to adjust the amount against the outstanding due to him and return the balance, Mr. Narayana Patra pretended to talk to his boss over the phone and told that the process of Demand Draft for Rs.1,12,240/- is under progress but till date the amount was not refunded to the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties after collecting a sum of Rs.1,80,860/- no registration was made in the name of the complainant and hence the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission for a direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,80,860/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 12.04.2001 till the date of payment and to pay Rs.2,30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other expenses incurred by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as costs.       

4.     The above claim was resisted by the opposite parties by filing their common written version contending inter alia that during the course of business, on 10.04.2001, the complainant submitted application for life membership (Master Card Membership) to the Opposite parties and paid a sum of Rs.22,500/-vide cheque bearing No.228163, dated 11.04.2000 as against the total sum of Rs.25,000/- to which a receipt was issued by the opposite parties. The complainant was admitted as a life time member (Master Card Member) vide a letter dated 07.05.2001. Despite becoming a member of the opposite parties club on 12.04.2001, the complainant had not submitted his photo for issuance of laminated membership card and subsequently, he was issued a membership card on 22.02.2002 and thereby he became a life member of the opposite party club from 12.04.2001 and he was allotted Membership No.CNIMC-60.  On 28.08.2006, the complainant applied for super cool life membership and requested the opposite parties to enhance his membership status from the state of “Master Card Life Member” to the state of “Super Cool Life Membership. As per the offer extended by them for super cool life membership, the complainant was to remit a sum of Rs.1,12,240/- as non-refundable membership fee to the opposite parties.  As complimentary and reward for super cool membership, the opposite parties would allot Plots in their lay out called Mango Grove on the Chennai – Tiruppathy Highway.  However, the registration charges and other miscellaneous expenses for transfer of plots are to be borne by the complainant. In compliance with the request made by the complainant by application dated 28.08.2006 the opposite parties enhanced the Master Card Life Membership of the complainant to Super Cool Life Membership. The complainant had also remitted a sum of Rs.1,12,240/- towards non-refundable super cool life membership fee to the opposite parties and the complainant was allotted Plot Nos.A-45 and A-46 in their Mango Grove lay out on Chennai – Tiruppathi Highway vide the letter of allotment dated 19.09.2006.  Though the opposite parties called upon the complainant to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for each plot) towards stamp paper fee, registration fee and maintenance charges ,the complainant neglected the demand of the opposite parties and failed to adhere to the contractual terms as stated in the application dated 28.08.2006. Further, the complainant requested the opposite party to allot one more plot in addition to the plots already allotted to him.  Based on the specific request of the complainant, the opposite parties allotted one more plot for Rs.66,120/- for which the complainant paid only Rs.46,120/- since it did not even match the cost of acquisition, the opposite party returned the amount of Rs.46,120/- to the complainant. The demand made by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 12.07.2007 remains unreciprocated and the complainant wilfully failed and neglected to perform his part of contractual obligations. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to the claim made in the complaint and hence the complaint has to be dismissed. It is also submitted that a sum of Rs.22,500/-  and another sum of Rs.1,12,240/- remitted by the complainant are non-refundable life time membership fee to the opposite parties and therefore the  complainant is estopped  from claiming refund of the same as per terms of the contract arrived between the complainant and the opposite parties. The additional amount of Rs.46,120/- paid by the complainant for additional plot has already been refunded to the complainant since the said amount does not even match the cost of acquisition incurred by the opposite parties and falls short of price of the Rs.66,120/-.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the complaint and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     Before the District Commission, both parties have filed their respective proof affidavit in support of their case. Exhibits A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.   

6.    Based on the above submissions and analysing the evidences, the District Commission held that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and thus dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved over the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant has preferred this appeal praying for setting aside the same.     

7.      Heard the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record. The very reading of the averments and perusal of the materials would clearly show that there are disputed questions of facts involved in this case.  According to the complainant he paid a sum of Rs.1,12,240/- for 2 plots of  Mango groves whereas according to the opposite parties the said sum was remitted by the complainant only as a non-refundable membership fee.  When there is a disputed question of facts with regard to the payment of money in between the complainant and the opposite parties regarding the purchase of land the same cannot be decided before the Consumer Commission in a summary procedure since it is a case which needs oral evidences and elaborate documents have to be marked and cross-examination of either side has to be conducted. In this regard, we rely on a judgement rendered by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ganeshlal – Vs – Shyam, has observed as follows;-  It is submitted that failure to hand over possession of the plot of land simpiliciter cannot come within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National  Commission”.  Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Estate Officer – Vs – Charanjit Kaur, on 7^th September, 2021, has held that the opposite party/respondents is not providing any services within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The expression “service” includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot.” Therefore, looking at any angle, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint after analysing the documents and hence we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the District Commission and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8.        In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) made in C.C.No.381/2008, dated 06.03.2013.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                              R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                 PRESIDENT.