PRESENT

                   Complainant by representative Adv.Jitendra Gor present.     

                    Opponent by Adv.Shradhha Worlikar  present.          

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)

1. The Complainant has filed the complaint against the Opponent for deficiency-in-service as per section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he became the Parivar Kool Kolad member of opponent 09/11/2008 and paid Rs.2,25,000/-.
3. The complainant stated that opponent agreed to provide service facility as well as agreed to allot a plot bearing No. 110 about 2000 sq.ft. at Kolad, Near Mangaon, on Mumbai-Goa Highway, Dist: Raigad. The opponent promised to register the said plot within eighteen months but failed to do so.
4. The complainant stated that opponent failed to provide facilities and privileges as stated in the agreement. And prayed that opponent party be directed to complete the registration procedure of the said plot or to refund the amount of membership with interest of 18% p.a. and cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
5. The opponent filed written statement and resisted the complaint on all counts. The present complaint is filed only with the intention to harass the opponent as no cause of action has arisen against the opponent.
6. The complainant is not entitled to repudiate the contract unilaterally. The amount paid by the complainant was non refundable as per the agreement, hence has no right of asking of refund of membership fees from the opponent. The plot was complementary with zero consideration.
7. The opposite party stated that complainant is not consumer and complaint is not maintainable as per law.
8. The opposite party states that as per agreement only courts of Hyderabad and Secunderabad will have jurisdiction in case of disputes arising if any.
9. The opposite party states that complainant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the membership.
10. The opposite party stated that as far as allotment of plot is concerned their role is limited as the allotment of plot was subject to policy of government regarding the Land acquisition, plotting, layout etc.
11. It is contended that free plot is a gift which does not have any kind of consideration.
12. The opposite party submitted that they have already issued a letter for allotment of plot which was complementary as per agreement. It is prayed that complaint be  dismissed with cost.
13. We have perused all the documents  produced on record by both the sides. Heard complainant and opponent at length.  
14. The main contention of the complainant is that opponent failed to render service as per the agreement of membership.
15. The opposite party submitted that complainant committed the breach of the terms of the agreement.
16. On perusal of the documents  it is evident that opposite party had allotted to the complainant the plot bearing No. 110 about 2000 sq.ft. at Kolad, Near Mangaon, on Mumbai-Goa Highway, Dist: Raigad on 30/03/2009.
17.  It is pertinent to note that opponent has not till this date given the possession of the said plot. The opponent has taken the ground that the allotment of plot is subject to policy of the government as to Land acquisition etc. The opponent failed to explain the steps taken by them for getting the clearance from competent authorities for giving the possession of the plot to the complainant.
18. We are of the opinion that opponent was under an obligation to act fairly with the complainant and was expected to take reasonable steps within proper time to handover the possession of the plot to the complainant.
19. The opponent on the other hand stated that complainant is not entitled for the said plot as the allotment was made as a complementary gift. The opponent is not permitted to take such stand as per law.
20. The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.2,25,000/- however the opponent  failed to perform contractual obligation of rendering service to him.
21. The complainant has been suffered by breach of contractual obligation on the part of opponent. The complainant therefore is entitle to receive from the opponent  who has broken the contract.
22. The complainant is entitle to rescind the contract due to breach of contract by opponent party.    
23. We are of the opinion that opponent is guilty for unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service by depriving the complainant of his legal right confered on him as per agreement.
24. We are of the opinion that opponent is guilty for breach of trust for accepting huge amount on the assurance of giving plot and other benefits and lastly stating that the allotment of the plot was complementary and without consideration.
25. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we feel proper in interest of justice to direct the opposite party to refund the total amount of Rs.2,25,000/- paid by complainant. The complainant has not claimed any compensation. He prayed that the said amount be refunded with interest @ 18%. As complainant  has not claimed compensation,  we accept his prayer for refund of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest @ 18% from the date of admitting of this complaint i.e. 26/05/2011. The complainant is also entitle for cost of Rs.10,000/- from opponent.
26.      In the result , we pass the following order.

                                        ORDER

1.      RBT complaint No.240/2011 is partly allowed.

2.      The opposite party is order to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest @ 18 % p.a

         from the date of filling of the complaint i.e 26 /05/2011.

3.       The opponents are further entitled to pay Rs. 10,000/- to complainant as a

         cost to this complaint.

4.      Copy of this order be sent to both parties.