DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.365/2014

Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal

S/o Sh. Umesh Aggarwal

House No.157, Sector-15A

Faridabad

Haryana

….Complainant

Versus

M/s Country Club (India) Ltd.

Through its Director

25,Ist Floor

Community Centre

East of Kailash

New Delhi-110065

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :   16.09.2014    

 Date of Order            :    21.10.2024  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kuashal

1.       Briefly put complainant purchased life long membership from M/s Country Club (India) Ltd hereinafter referred to as OP.

2.       The said membership was purchased for clubbing, Gym, Holiday benefits. Complainant paid consideration of Rs.2,37,500/- on 04.04.2011 for aforesaid facilities. It is stated that complainant was further to pay sum of Rs.6,000/- p.a on account of service maintenance charges.

3.       It is stated that OP vide email dated 12.05.2014 demanded Rs.10,000/- per annum + taxes, total amounting to Rs.11,236/- p.a  towards AMC Charges instead of Rs.6,000/- as agreed upon in the Welcome letter dated 05.11.2011. Such dishonest and fraudulent conduct on part of OP forced the complainant to revoke the agreement dated 29.03.2011.

4.       Alleging unfair trade practice, complainant prays for direction to OP to pay sum of Rs.2,37,500/- with interest @18% p.a from 29.03.2011 till realization; to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental torture pain agony to the complainant and Rs.31,000/- towards litigation charges.

5.       OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the name of OP has been changed from ‘M/s Country Club India Ltd.’ to ‘M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holiday Ltd’ w.e.f 27.11.2014.

6.       OP raised preliminary objection stating that the registered address of OP is in Hyderabad which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Moreover, as per Clause 14 of Membership Agreement

‘14... only courts of Sikendrabad and Hyderabad will have jurisdiction in case of dispute arising, if any between the member and CCIL’

7.       It is next stated that complainant had entered into a valid contract which inter alia clearly provides that ‘the membership fee is non-refundable under any circumstances and the membership fee is not  deposit’.

8.       The membership agreement is duly signed by the parties hence, unilateral termination of written contract is not permissible.

9.       It is further stated that the complainant has come to the Commission with unclean hands. The complainant had utilized the holidays in the year 2012-13 for Bangkok from 07.03.2013 to 09.03.2013 and he also availed a holiday from 06.09.2013 to 08.09.2013 for Kasoli. Holiday confirmation receipts are annexed as Annexure B. It is stated that the complainant has enjoyed the aforesaid holidays to his full satisfaction and has not occurred even a single incident of deficiency of service pertaining to these holidays.

10.     Complainant has approached the Commission with a complaint that there was change in the Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC) which was not acceptable to him. In reply thereof, it is stated that the membership opted by the complainant is valid lifelong for clubbing and  thirty years  for vacation. It is stated that with the ongoing economic conditions AMC cannot be accepted to remain the same forever. Increase in the maintenance charges is required to spend on its properties for day to day up keeping in order to provide best services to its members. Moreover, Clause 2 of the membership agreement clearly states that ‘this fee can change every year’

11.     In light of the facts stated above, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed being meritless with exemplary costs.

12.     Complainant in the rejoinder states that OP in its affidavit has disclosed that OP is having its office at East of Kailash, New Delhi hence, the complaint is filed within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Evidence and written arguments are filed on behalf of both  the parties. Submissions made on behalf of Learned counsels are heard. Material placed on record is perused.

13.     The preliminary objection raised by OP qua the territorial jurisdiction has no force as it is seen that the complainant resides in Faridabad and would not have gone to the registered office of OP in Sikanderabad or Hyderabad to sign the agreement. Moreover, OP has filed an affidavit with the WS which shows that OP has a branch office in East of Kailsah, New Delhi which the jurisdiction of this Commission.

14.     The bone of contention between the parties is the increase of Annual Maintenance Charges from Rs6,000/- p.a on 05.11.2014 to Rs.11,236/- on 12.05.2014.

15.     Complainant’s case is that as per the Welcome letter provided by OP complainant was to pay Rs.6,000/- p.a however, OP on its own increased the AMC to Rs.11,236/-.

16.     On perusal of the agreement signed between the parties the AMC fee could be changed every year for ready reference the relevant portion of Clause 2 is reproduced as under-

          Administration charges are Rs.7,000/- currently excluding service taxes and needs to be  paid annually, irrespective of the usage of the condos/club, same shall be applicable from the date of enrollment of membership. This fees can change every year.

17.     Moreover, as per common knowledge also the maintenance charges would increase with the increase of inflation therefore, this Commission is of the view that OP has not indulged in unfair trade practice by increasing the AMC.

18.     It is also seen that complainant has availed two holidays with OP which is categorically not denied by the complainant.

19.     In light of the fact that OP was within its right to increase the AMC, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.