Order No. 19 dt. 14/11/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a membership form the o.p.s for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. At the time of selling the membership the executive of the o.ps offered the complainant with many services. The complainant tried to avail of holiday facility assured by the o.p.s but he was charged more than expected market rate whereas he was promised that he would get free accommodation for 7 days per year for 30 years. The complainant tried to contact the o.p.s and to get his problem resolved but there was no response from the o.p.s. The complainant thereafter sent a letter but no communication was received from the o.ps. Since the complainant was deceived by the o.ps the complainant filed the case praying for refund of the amount of Rs.65,000/- and compensation of Rs. 40,000/- as well as litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
The o.p.s contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant was informed regarding the facilities to be enjoyed by the complainant after becoming the member. After knowing the entire fact the complainant agreed voluntarily and took the membership spontaneously. The complainant failed to pay the subscription, therefore the services as sought for by the complainant could not be provided. It was also stated that o.ps. were never approached by the complainant for any service. The complainant by manufacturing the false allegations against the o.p.s filed this case and there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p.s and thereby o.p.s prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :
- Whether the complainant were approached by o.ps. for becoming the member of the club of o.p.s ?
- Whether the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 65,000/- to o.p.s ?
- Whether the complainant was allured by o.p.s for providing different facilities?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.p.s ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a membership form the o.ps. for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. At the time of selling the membership the executive of the o.ps offered the complainant with many services. The complainant tried to avail of holiday facility assured by the o.ps but he was charged more than expected market rate whereas he was promised that he would get free accommodation for 7 days per year for 30 years. The complainant tried to contact the o.ps and to get his problem resolved but there was no response from the o.ps. The complainant thereafter sent a letter but no communication was received from the o.ps. Since the complainant was deceived by the o.ps the complainant filed the case praying for refund of the amount of Rs. 65,000/- and compensation of Rs. 40,000/- as well as litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that the complainant was informed regarding the facilities to be enjoyed by the complainant after becoming the member. After knowing the entire fact the complainant agreed voluntarily and took the membership spontaneously. The complainant failed to pay the subscription, therefore the services as sought for by the complainant could not be provided. It was also stated that o.ps. were never approached by the complainant for any service. The complainant by manufacturing the false allegations against the o.p.s filed this case and there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p.s and thereby o.p.s prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant was first approached by o.p.s with the enticement of providing facilities. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant approached the o.p.s for an accommodation for which the o.p.s charged more than expected market rate denying the promise made by the o.p.s to the complainant for providing accommodation. It is usual practice of the o.p.s to entice the public by making false promise that they will be provided with various facilities after obtaining membership and allured with the facilities including providing of free accommodation, subsidized rate of hotel charges and other benefits. Generally after hearing of these facilities and being approached by o.ps. to take the membership o.ps asked the parties to sign on some documents and also pay the cheque and the cheque is encashed within a shortwhile so that the parties cannot change their mind subsequently. In such manner they deceive the parties. Here in this case same thing happened. There are lots of cases pending before this Forum and other Fora also making same allegations against the o.ps. and o.ps. take the same plea that the parties generally after going though the terms and conditions of the agreement put their signature and since the agreement itself is binding upon the parties and therefore no allegation can be entertained by the parties against the o.ps. The complainant were allured in such manner as has been described in the petition of complaint as well as in the evidence. It was beyond the scope of the complainant to understand that they are going to be deceived by o.ps. The o.ps. generally make target to the senior citizens whenever visited shopping malls, big cinema halls, etc. where they lay trap upon the public and make false promises and entice the parties in such manner. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant was allured that he was misled by o.ps. and took the money and afterwards no facility was provided, whenever the complainant lodged protest the same was not entertained, thereby the complainant had no other alternative but to file this case before this Forum praying for reliefs. In view of such facts and circumstances of the case we hold that o.ps. are in the habit of making such false assurance to the members and accordingly we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for as there was deficiency in service on the part of o.p.s. It is relevant to mention here that during the pronouncement of the judgement the o.p.s filed a petition stating inter alia that the o.p.s are agreeable to pay Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant. A copy of the said petition was served upon the complainant who endorsed ‘no objection’ if the o.p.s pay the said amount the complainant agreed to receive the said amount.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
that the case no. 238 of 2014 is allowed on contest without cost against the o.p.s. The o.p.s are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @08% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
