Date of Filing:16.05.2008<br /> Date of Order:11.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 11TH DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1144 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Prashanth<br /> S/o. Vishwanathan<br /> R/at Flat No. 204, Mathrusree Village Homes<br /> 40/1B, Pullappa Colony<br /> Yemalur Main Road<br /> H.A.L. Post, Bangalore 560 037 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Country Club India (Pvt.) Ltd.<br /> Represented by its Manager<br /> (Administrative Office)<br /> 675, 9th A Main, Indiranagar<br /> I Stage, Bangalore 560 038<br /> <br /> 2. Uma Shankar<br /> Country Club, BPO Division<br /> 1081, 12th Main, HAL 2nd Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 038 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant had joined as member of opposite party No. 1 club at Bangalore. He has paid Rs. 40,000/- towards membership fee under receipt dated 25.06.2007. The complainant became member under the Gold Crown Premium Super Card Scheme. The opposite parties have not made arrangements for accommodation facilities in Chennai when contacted they did not give any satisfactory reply. Similar thing repeated for the second time. Complainant several time requested either to arrange facilities in Chennai or to refund the amount. Legal notice was issued. Opposite parties did not send any reply to the notice. The complainant requested that opposite party No. 1 to be directed to refund Rs. 40,000/- and to grant Rs. 25,000/- towards mental harassment.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party was put in appearance through advocate Sri Manjunath S.M.. Defence version was filed stating that opposite party is a club registered under the Indian Companies Act. The complainant has become member of the club by paying Rs. 40,000/-. No deficiency of service committed by the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard. Perused the documents.<br /> 4. The complainant has produced receipt dated 24.06.2007 for Rs. 40,000/-. This receipt has been issued by the opposite party No. 1. By this receipt it is clear that opposite party No. 1 had received Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant under Gold Crown Premium Super Card Scheme. Under the said scheme the opposite party had offered direct access to five clubs in Bangalore and one club in Goa and 220 affiliated clubs through out the globe. Complimentary Life Membership, complimentary 6 nights and 7 days stay at RGBC, Goa and other facilities. But, it is the case of the complainant that the opposite party has not provided any facilities as offered under the scheme. The complainant has written letter to opposite party and also sent legal notice complaining the deficiency in service. The legal notice sent by the complainant has not been answered by the opposite party. The defence version has been signed by the advocate of the opposite party. The opposite parties have not signed the defence version and there is no verification to the defence version. Therefore, the defence version filed by the opposite party has no validity. Even otherwise the opposite party admitted that they have received Rs. 40,000/- as membership fee from the complainant. In connected cases the Country Club India had refunded membership fee to the respective complainants. Number of complaints has been filed against the opposite party No. 1 and this forum has passed order for refund of the membership fee. The opposite party No. 1 has fairly come forward and refunded the amount promptly by giving D.D. to respective complainant. Therefore, this complaint being the similar in nature it also required to be allowed. The opposite party No. 1 shall be directed to refund Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has sought Rs. 25,000/- towards mental harassment. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case to grant compensation. The ends of justice can be met by directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant immediately. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of order till realization. Complainant is entitled to Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from opposite party No. 1.<br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 11TH DAY OF JULY 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />