DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.109/13
Mr. Surajit Chanda
J-55, Ist Floor, Paryavaran Complex
J-Block, IGNOU Main Road
Nebsarai
NewDelhi-110068. …Complainant
VERSUS
Managing Director
Country Club of India Ltd.
3rd Floor, Community Centre
East of Kailash, Near Sapna Cinema
New Delhi-110065.
CEO
Country Vacations
Country Club (India) Limited
#675, 9th A, Main
Indira Nagar 1st Stage
Bangalore-560038. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 01.03.2013
Date of Order : 20.10.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing the country Club of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) (i) to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- which was paid for the alleged membership; (ii) to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental harassment etc.; (iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost; (iv) the interest @ 18% per annum on the above amount till the date of realisation may be allowed etc. CEO of the Country Vacations, Country Club of India is OP-2.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant was invited to attend a seminar in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi where he was forced to take membership of the OP’s club with the promise that the Country Club has affiliation with many clubs including the one at Sainik Farms in Neb Sarai. The OP-2 (i.e. country vacations), also promised free holiday for 2 Nights + 3 Days every next 05 years for 04 adults of his family. Based on information and promises, the Complainant took membership for his family i.e. of 4 adults by paying Rs.55,000/-on 13.10.2009 and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.45,000/- was to be paid in instalments. It was realised that the OP has cheated him on providing wrong information.
- There is no operational club at Neb Sarai
- Membership for 04 adults was not extended instead of 2 adults + 2 children were allowed.
- 06 Night & 07 Days holiday every year for 30 years on payment of extra amount of Rs.35,000/-.
In view of above short of obligation, the Complainant sent many e-mails and legal notice was got served upon OP as well.
OPs, on the other hand, submitted its reply interalia raising preliminary objection. It was denied each and every allegation averments/contentions of the complainant and nothing should be construed as admitted unless specifically admitted. The OP also challenged the complainant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the registered address of the OPs is at Amrutha Catle, 5-9-16, Saifabad Hyderabad-500063 which does not fall within territorial jurisdiction this Commission. Membership Agreement further provides that in case of any dispute, the courts of Hyderabad & Secunderabad alone shall have jurisdiction. The complainant has not pointed specifically what kind of services were found lacking. Since the complainant was satisfied with services so he has taken the membership and opted for the DAE Card in Goa Resort of the company. He utilised the service at Manali in August 2011 and Goa in Feb. 2012. The complainant should like recourse to the arbitration to settle the dispute. It was clear to the Complainant that he had to pay Annual Administrative charges as per clause of Annexure-II of the Contract. It was exhorted in its averments that the amount paid towards membership, shall be non-refundable. The same is provided in Agreement as well and the Membership Agreement has been signed by the Complainant. The Complainant ought to be aware of this fact that the membership of the Op’s club is non-refundable. The OP also averred that the Complainant owes Rs.45,000/- for balance payment of membership as per letter dated 26.10.2009.
The Op further alleges that the Complainant deliberately has not informed any of the failures such as non-payment of annual administrative charges as per clause 3 of Annexure-II of the Contract and complying with the mandatory steps to avail various benefits as provided in membership agreement. From the above, it is well established that the OP is not deficient in service at all, whereas the Complainant had to pay the balance amount of membership fess as contended by the OP.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues. Thoughtful considerations was given to the arguments. The OP has maintained that the complainant was fully satisfied with the services and availed the services at Manali & sought DAE Card in goa. Then it cannot be concluded that the Complainant did not enjoy the services extended to him for the visits at its properties as mentioned alove. This Commission also examined the signed copy of the Membership Agreement which provides that the membership fee shall be non-refundable. The Complainant could not lead any such evidence which can reflect any short of obligation on the part of OP. As regards to territorial jurisdiction, this Commission has valid jurisdiction as office premises of the OP falls under the jurisdiction of this Commission. As regards to preliminary objections of OP on raising the objection on being covered as Consumer. The same has been examined and found that the services extended by OP Company squarely falls under the purview of definition of Consumer as provided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
After having considered the material on record, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of services on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint fails and request for refund is rejected in toto.
No orders as to the costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
