COMPLAINT FILED: 27.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 14th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1887/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Akash Somashekhar,<br /> 1360, 9th Cross, Phase – I,<br /> J.P. Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 078.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The General Manager,<br /> Country Club (India) Ltd.,<br /> Bangalore Division, # 273,<br /> Defence Colony,<br /> H.A.L. Second Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Chairman and Managing Director,<br /> Country Club (I) Ltd.,<br /> 6-3-1219, Begumpet,<br /> Hyderabad – 500 016.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (S.M. Manjunatha)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest and pay a damages of Rs.76,000/- and for such other reliefs 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 /> Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, thought of becoming the member of the OP cool card scheme. He took the said membership in the month of July 2006 and paid in all Rs.1,15,000/-. OP offered many more amenities, facilities and benefits including that of allotment of 4 sites at their layout Coconut Groove near Tumkur each measuring 1,800 sq. ft. Though OP encashed the said amount paid through card, but failed to keep up its promise in registering the site and providing other benefits. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions. He is required to pay the registration and stamp duty with regard to complementary plots within 30 days from the date of allotment, but he failed to do so. There is a default on the part of the complainant, for that OP cannot be blamed. OP allotted the said plots to the other eligible member. Even till today OP is ready to allot the plots at their Bagepalli Project if complainant bears the other necessary expenses. Complainant enjoyed the club facilities to maximum extent, so he is not entitled for the refund of the said fees. The whole complaint is devoid of merits. 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 the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <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. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant became the cool card member the scheme floated by the OP in the month of July 2006 and he has paid in all Rs.1,15,000/-. It is also not at dispute that OP had promised to allot 4 sits at their Coconut Groove Layout near Tumkur each measuring 1,089 sq. ft. along with other benefits. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that though OP collected all the necessary charges, but failed to allot the plot as promised. His repeated requests and demands made to OP went in vain. Thus he felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents, appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to save their skin out of sin. It is contended by the OP that complainant failed to make payment of the stamp duty and registration charges well within the stipulated period of time. When actually OP came forward to register the said plot is not known. So that defence appears to be a mere eye wash. It is further contended by the OP that even till today they are ready to allot the plots at Bagepalli. Whether OP has formed the layout consisting of plots of various dimensions duly approved by the statutory authority free from encumbrances and are at their disposal. No such documents are produced by the OP. So again the defence of the OP that they are ready to allot alternative plots at Bagepalli layout also appears to be an after thought one.<br /> <br /> 8. The fact that OP received Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant is not at dispute. OP having retained the said huge amount without allotting the plot and register the plot accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. It is further contended by the OP that complainant has enjoyed the benefit of the club. Enjoyment of the benefit of the club facility is nothing to do with allotment of 4 sites that too each measuring 1,089 sq. ft. Admittedly OP has not allotted and registered the said site, when that is so we are satisfied that there is a proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances the complainant deserves the relief of refund of the said amount paid. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly 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/- and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 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 14th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />