COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 21st JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOs.2558/2008, 2559/2008 & 2560/2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2558/2008COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.2559/2008COMPLAINANTSCOMPLAINT NO.2560/2008COMPLAINANTOPPOSITE PARTY Sri.Manish Gautam,S/o O.P.Gautam,Aged about 32 years,R/at No.5, 21st Main Road,3rd ‘E’ Cross, BTM Layout,2nd Stage,Bangalore – 560 076.Mrs.Dilys Dias,W/o Abhinav Jhunjhunwala,Aged about 30 years,R/at No.33, Stephen Cottage MDM Road, OM More Road,Frazer Town,Bangalore – 560 005.Mrs.Rekha Yeligay,W/o R.Srinivas,Aged about 28 years,R/at No.2259,Subramani Layout,Near R.M Nagar Police Station,3rd Cross, Vijayapura,Bangalore – 560 016.(Advocate– Sri.Kiran Murgod<br /> V/s1) M/s. The Country Club India Ltd.,R/by its Managing Director,# 273, 1st Main Road,Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.Also at2. M/s. Country Club India Ltd.,Regd. Office @ “Amrutha Castic” 5-9-16, Opp:Secretariat Saifabad,Hyderabad - 500063.Advocate – Sri.S.M.Manjunatha<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the three complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by each one these respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund what ever the amount they have paid and pay a compensation and damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> As the opposite parties in all the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, these cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> <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 thought of becoming the member of the club under various schemes. OP accepted their membership and collected the fees not only that he has collected the monthly subscription fees also. OP promised so many attractive offers like ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay for 6 nights and 7 days, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay etc. But thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainants in not providing the basic facilities and the services as promised. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For the convenience sake the card membership, amount paid, membership number, date of legal notice noted below in the chart. When the repeated requests and demands made by the complainants have gone in vain they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> Sl No. Complaint No. Card member ship Amount paid Member ship No. Legal Notice<br /> 1) 2558/08 Country Kuteeram Rs.55,000/-Rs.2,330/- (Two months subscription) BLGCK-1041 A 22.10.2008<br /> 2) 2559/08 Mr.Cool Card Member Rs.1,15,000/-Rs.2,330/- (Two months subscription) COOLCG8401 22.10.2008<br /> 3) 2560/08 Country Kuteeram Rs.55,000/-Rs.2,330/- (Two months subscription) BLGCK-140 B 22.10.2008<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in all the three complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the version is as under:<br /> <br /> According to OP the club membership fee that is paid by each one of these complainants is non refundable. It is further contended that the OP’s are ready to execute the deed with respect to the complimentary sites in favour of the complainants as soon as complainants pay the registration and other miscellaneous charges as required. Each one of these complainants have extensively used the club facilities. The other allegations made by the complainants are all false and frivolous. Complaints are devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation nor obliged to refund the fees. 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 have 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 become the member of the OP scheme as noted in the chart. OP accepted their membership and allotted them certain number. It is also not at dispute that OP collected the membership fees as well as service charges as noted in the chart from each one of these complainants. Now the main grievance of the complainants is that though OP collected the service charges for two months but failed to provide the facilities as promised.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the complainants in complaint No.2558/2008 and No.2560/2008 OP promised them to provide stay at ‘Royal Goan Beach club’ for 6 nights and 7days, free air ticket to Goa and other facilities. In complaint No.2559/2008 OP promised the coverage the insurance of Rs.6,00,000/- and stay at wildlife resort, ‘BUSH BETTA’. In spite of their repeated requests and demands OP failed to extend the said service as promised. The evidence of the complainant’s which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than the quantity.<br /> <br /> 8. When OP failed to heed to their demand complainants even caused the legal notice on 22.10.2008. Copies of the legal notice, postal acknowledgements are produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainants felt deficiency in service. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk the responsibility and obligation. The defence of the OP that what ever the club membership fees paid is non refundable has no basis. <br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that even now it is ready to execute the sale deed with respect to the complimentary sites if complainants pay required registration fees and stamp duty. No where complainants have sought for allotment of a complimentary site in their favour and registration of the same. So this defence of the OP is very strange. <br /> <br /> 10. OP is not very much sure about its own defence. No where OP has stated that it provided ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay as contended by the complainants. So non specific denial of the said allegations in our view amounts to an admission. Though OP received such a huge amount from each one of these complainants but failed to provide the said facilities as promised thereby accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of theirs. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 11. The approach of the OP does not appear to be very much fair and honest. Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Under such circumstances they are entitled for certain relief. Of course the claim of compensation appears to be exorbitant and high. There is no basis for the said claim. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund what ever the amount it has received from the complainants towards membership along with token of compensation and litigation cost. With these observations we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaints are allowed in part.<br /> <br /> 1. In complaint No.2558/2008 OP is directed to refund Rs.55,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 2. In complaint No.2559/2008 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. In complaint No.2560/2008 OP is directed to refund Rs.55,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<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.2558/2008 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 21st day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />