COMPLAINT FILED: 25.04.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 01st AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.963/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Sunil R.Kamath, Major,<br /> S/o Sri Ramachandra Kamath,<br /> #474-‘B’ Royal Park – Residency,<br /> Avalahalli, J.P.Nagar 9th Phase,<br /> Opp: Anjanapura – PO,<br /> Bangalore – 560 062.<br /> <br /> Rep: by his GPA Holder<br /> Sri B.N.Srinath Reddy, <br /> Aged about 32 years,<br /> S/o B.V.Narayana Swamy Reddy,<br /> <br /> Advocate (K.R.Ashok Kumar)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY 1. M/s Country Club (India) Ltd.,<br /> Regd. Office at: 8-2-703,<br /> Amrutha Valley, Road No.12,<br /> Banjara Hills,<br /> Hyderabad – 560 034.<br /> Rep: by its Chairman and <br /> Managing Director.<br /> <br /> 2. M/s Country Club (India) Ltd.,<br /> # 675, 9th ‘A’ Main,<br /> Indiranagar 1st Stage,<br /> Old Syndicate Bank Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> Rep: by its Chairman and <br /> Managing Director.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Amrutha Estates,<br /> Division of Country Club (India)Ltd.,<br /> Branch Office at: No.478,<br /> “Maha Padma”, 1st Main, 1st Stage,<br /> Indiranagar, <br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> Rep: by its Chairman and <br /> Managing Director.<br /> <br /> Advocate (S.M.Manjunatha)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- and to refund Rs.1,40,000/- along with interest on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant being attracted with the publicity and scheme floated by OP become the member of OP club as ‘Mr. Cool Membership’ and paid in all Rs.1,40,000/- between March-2007 to July-2007. OP promised to give free complimentary plots in their project ‘Coconut Groove’ and asked the complainant to pay Rs.15,000/- towards registration charges than that of membership fee. The complainant paid the entire fee. But still to the reasons best known to OP. OP went on postponing the registration of the plot and the club service was also not satisfactory. Complainant though invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of the same. His repeated requests and demands made to the OP went in vain. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service against the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the membership fee once paid is non-refundable. Complainant utilized the club service to the maximum extent. Hence he is not entitled for the refund of the same. OP is ready to allot a complimentary site, but complainant failed to pay the registration charges no fault lies with the OP, even till today. OP is ready to allot a site and register it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of<br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled <br /> for the relief now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. 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 /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant become the member of the OP club under the scheme Mr. Cool Membership in the year-2007. According to the complainant he has paid in all Rs.1,40,000/- to the OP towards the membership fee as well as registration of the complimentary plot. On the other hand OP has admitted the fact of receipt of Rs.1,25,000/-. The complainant produced certain receipts issued by the OP. They speaks to the fact of payment of only Rs.1,25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 9. On the scrutiny of the documents produced there is no proof of payment of Rs.15,000/- towards the so called registration and miscellaneous expenses. Of course OP is bound to allot a site and register a complimentary plot in their project Coconut Groove. Though OP has contended that they are ready to allot a site and register a site, but which is the site number that is allotted to the complainant is not made clear or not known. Hence, for this simple reason the defence of the OP in that regard appears to be defence for defence sake, may be to avoid their obligations.<br /> <br /> 10. OP has further contended that the membership fee once received is non refundable. Complainant become the member of the OP club being attracted with the publicity and the facilities, benefits going to be provided. When OP failed to allot a complimentary plot and register it naturally complainant who invested his hard earned money must have suffered. Merely because he enjoyed the club facilities for about two years is no ground to discard his claim.<br /> <br /> 11. We have also gone through the documents produced by the OP. As it is there is no proof that the so called project is completed and it is approved by the statutory authority. Under the circumstances we find the defence OP of the OP that it is in possession of such a plot in a layout approved by the authority and are at its disposal cannot be believed. OP has not caused any notice to the complainant expressing its desire to register a plot. No such steps are taken. Here we find the deficiency in the service. <br /> <br /> 12. The evidence of the complainant finds full collaboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be baseless. The complainant who invested his hard earned money is unable to reap the fruits of his investment, it is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances complainants deserves certain reliefs. Of course he prayed for the refund of the fee and not sought a relief with regard to allotment and registration of the plot. Under such circumstances we answer point No.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from August-2007 till realization and pay 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 /> (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 01st day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> s.n.m. <br />