COMPLAINT FILED: 31.03.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 28th JULY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.757/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Vinayak Hegde.<br /> Aged about 32 years,<br /> S/o Sri Kamal Hegde,<br /> No.26, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross, <br /> Khadi Layout Vivekananda Nagar,<br /> Katriguppa Main Road,<br /> B.S.K. 3rd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 085,<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 /> V/s.<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 /> 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.5,00,000/- and to refund Rs.2,04,166/- and for such reliefs 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 lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP become the member of Cool Membership Card and paid in all Rs.2,04,166/- on various dates. OP promised to provide certain facilities and amenities and also promise to allot complimentary sites. Though complainant is obliged to pay the extra charges, but still after allotting the two sites bearing number 177 and 178 in ‘Coconut Grove’ collected Rs.35,000/- etc. Thereafter OP failed to register the said sites in favour of the complainant. Inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. OP has not at all formed the so called layout and developed it. Complainant felt that he is duped, under the circumstances he requested OP to refund the amount paid. There was no response. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Complainant suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. <br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the membership fee paid is non-refundable. Complainant has not paid Rs.2,04,166/-. Having utilized the club facilities and amenities to the maximum extent, now, he cannot seek for the refunded of the said amount. OP has completed the said project sites are ready for registration. Though OP requested the complainant several times to pay the registration fee and get register the allotted sites in his name in his name but it went in vain. 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 the 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 reliefs now claimed?<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 /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took Cool Membership Card of OP club in the month of December 2006. According to the complainant towards the said membership he as paid in all Rs.2,04,166/-. OP promised to give complimentary free sites in pursuance of the said membership. Ultimately allotted two sites bearing No.177 and 178 and for the development OP collected Rs.35,000/- etc., Which according to the complaint was unjust and improper.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further stated by the complainant that though he was ready to perform his part of contract OP did not come forward to register the same plots and to provide basic amenities and facilities of the club. Though complainant has invested his hard earned money is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Complainant felt that he is duped. <br /> <br /> 10. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. At one breath OP admits the receipt of Rs.1,15,000/- towards the membership, but takes an untenable defence that is the non refundable. The fact that OP allotted two plots and collected Rs.35,000/-, under the guise of development is also not at dispute. When OP promised to allot two free complimentary plots with regard to the membership taken by the complainant in our view it is not fair on the part of the OP to collect the so called development charges, here we find the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 11. It is further contended by the complainant that he was ready to abide all the terms and conditions in taking the sale deed of the allotted plots. OP has stated that it has developed the said project and plots are ready for registration. OP has not produced any piece of documents to show that the said project is completed and it is approved by the statutory authority. If really the said plots are at their disposal free from all encumbrances, OP would have caused the notice to the complainant expressing their desire to register the plots, but no such steps are taken. Under such circumstances it can only to be held that contention of the OP that they are ready to register plot appears to be defence for defence sake. <br /> <br /> 12. On the perusal of the documents produced by the complainant one Lokesh Hegde paid certain amount to the OP. What is the relationship between the complainant and Lokesh Hegde is not known. Under such circumstances we find there is substance in the defence of the OP that complainant had paid only Rs.1,54,166/- and not Rs.2,04,166/-. Complainant is able to establish the payment of only Rs.1,54,166/-. On the perusal of the prayer column complainant has not sought for registration of free sites in his favour, but he is interested in refund of the membership amount. The fact that complainant utilized the club services since 2006 is also not at dispute. Under such circumstances we are of the view that the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.1,54,166/- and pay a token compensation along with litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point No.1 and 2 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.1,54,167/- and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- with a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.<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 28th day of July 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br /> <br />