<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 02nd FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOs.2843/2008 & 2861/2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2843/2008COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.2861/2008COMPLAINANT Mr.R.Bharath,S/o Radhakrishna Bhat,Age 25 years,Residing at No.19, “CHIGURU”2nd Stage, 3rd Phase, 3rd Main,3rd Cross, Domlur,Bangalore – 560 071.(Advocate – Sri.D.P.Shiva Prasad)Sri.M.M.Kumaraswamy,‘Srusti’,No.410, 1st Floor,34th Main, 17th Cross,Behind Frank School,6th Phase, J.P.Nagar,Bangalore – 560 078.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES V/s1) Country Club India Ltd.,Represented by its Manager,Regional Administrative Department,at No.273, 1st Main Road,Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.And also atNo.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,Indiranagar, 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.Represented by itsManager2) Surana A.K.Representative of Country Club (India) Ltd.,No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,Indiranagar, 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.3) Danish Akthar M.DRepresentative of Country Club (India) Ltd.,No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,Indiranagar, 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.Advocate – Sri.S.M.Manjunatha<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the two complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the membership fee and pay compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> As the opposite parties in both the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, these two cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:<br /> 2. Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who promised to provide them various facilities like coverage of insurance, membership with RCI resorts, week end stay at Goa, free air ticket, allotment of complimentary plots etc., thought of becoming the member of the OP club. For convenience sake the membership number, amount paid, issuance of legal notice and the nature of membership are mentioned in the chart given below. Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. According to the complainants their repeated requests and demands made to OP to keep up its promise, allot the sites and provide other facilities as promised including weekend stay at RCI resort, air ticket to Goa were not considered. Thus complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly. <br /> Sl No. Complaint No. Member ship Number Amount paid Notice<br /> 1) 2843/08 Mr.Cool Card Cool CG.5299 Rs.1,15,000/- -------<br /> 2) 2861/08 Mr.Cool Card Cool BT 640 Rs.1,25,000/- 18.12.08<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in both complaints are almost identical and same. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the version is as under:<br /> <br /> According to the OP what ever the membership fee that is paid is non refundable. OP is ready to allot and register the site but complainants are bound to pay the stamp duty and registration charges within 30 days from the date of allotment. They have not responded to the said call made by the OP. Each one of these complainants have substantially enjoyed all the club facilities including that of holiday package, week end etc., but still they have come up with these false and frivolous complaints with ulterior motive of getting themselves illegally enriched. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complaints are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants filed their 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 these complaints are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant’s have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant’s are <br /> entitled for the relief’s 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 out set it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants became the member of OP club under various categories as noted in the chart and paid the lump sum amount. OP having accepted their membership allotted them the number. According to the complainants OP is obliged to provide them the club facilities, including that of weekend holidays at Goa, some forest guest house, air ticket, insurance etc. Though complainants made several requests and demands it went in futile. To attract the membership OP promised to give complimentary sites measuring 1089 Sq. feet and health facility under the scheme “Moksh” that was also not provided. <br /> <br /> 7. According to the complainants though initially OP promised them to allot the sites and mentioned the site numbers in the letters addressed to them but those sites are to be registered by Amrutha Estates and Amrutha Estate is asking them to pay the stamp duty, registration charges, other miscellaneous expenses ranging from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. At the time of enrolment of their membership, acceptance of their membership OP never told them that in order to have the complimentary sites they are expected to pay the stamp duty, registration charges and other miscellaneous expenses. OP has taken these complainants for a ride. After accepting their membership fees started imposing certain hidden charges which are not at all disclosed at the time of enrolment.<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. The facts and circumstances now shown and established by the complainant’s leads us to draw an inference that approach of the OP is not fair. After the receipt of such a huge amount from each one of these complainants OP failed to discharge its obligation in providing the club facilities and in allotting the sites. Though OP has contended that complainant enjoyed the club facilities to the maximum extent for this there is no proof. If at all complainant enjoyed the said facilities there would have been some records and documents. No such documents are produced by the OP. Even though OP says that it is ready to register the site whether that layout is approved by the statutory authority and whether such sites are actually available at the disposal of the OP is not known. <br /> <br /> 9. The contention of the OP that what ever the membership amount that is paid is non refundable also does not hold much force. OP acted unilaterally in canceling the site, some times in demanding the other wise service charges. To substantiate its defence OP has not produced relevant documents. On the other hand the evidence of the complainant’s which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents which deserves to be accepted in toto. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. <br /> <br /> 10. Though each one of these complainants have invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances complainants must have naturally suffered both mental agony and financial loss. OP having retained the said huge amount without extending the service as promised accrued the wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of theirs. Bearing in mind all these facts and circumstances we are of the view that these are the fit cases wherein complainants deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaints are allowed in part.<br /> <br /> 1. In complaint No.2843/2008 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from January 2007 till realization and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. In complaint No.2861/2008 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from June 2007 till realization and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2843/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.<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 02nd day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />