Order No. 21 Dated 02/09/2016
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants visited the office of o.ps. on 3.8.13 and the officers of o.ps. offered to sell the membership of club one of the services provided by o.ps. to its various members for visiting the different places of the country. The complainants made a part payment of Rs.10,000/- out of the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- and subsequently paid two other installments i.e. the they paid Rs.30,000/-. Whenever the complainants realized that they will not be able to pay the total amount of Rs.90,000/- they requested the o.ps. not to encash the cheques, but the cheques were placed for which the cheques were dishonoured. On 14.9.13 the complainants deposited Rs.30,000/- in their SBI A/C and suddenly the said amount was withdrawn by o.ps. Being annoyed such activities on the part of o.ps. the complainants did not try to continue with the membership and as such, the complainants alleged that the o.ps. are guilty of unfair trade practice for which the complainants filed this case praying for refund of Rs.30,000/- and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.ps. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was specifically stated that the complainants entered into an agreement with the o.ps. for having the membership of the club and issued three cheques and subsequently some of the cheques were bounced. But the complainants falsely alleged that o.ps. encashed the amount from the account of the complainants, such statements made by the complainants are totally false and the reliefs sought for by the complainants are not available in this Forum. The deficiency as defined in Sec 2(g) of the C.P. Act does not cover the claim arising dispute between the parties and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case by imposing huge cost.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainants paid Rs.30,000/-.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
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 complainants argued that the complainant no.1 entered into an agreement with the o.ps. and paid Rs.0,000/- but due to financial stringency she requested the o.ps. not to drop three account payee cheques of each Rs.30,000/- in their account for disbursement and in spite of such intimation and expressing her desire to cancel the agreement between them those cheques were deposited and the amount was withdrawn causing unnecessary financial trouble to the complainants created by the o.ps. In view of the said fact the complainants have prayed for return of the said amount along with other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that in the club membership purchase agreement there is a stipulation that in case of dispute the matter is to be referred to arbitrator and the allegation made by the complainants are totally false and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as lodged by them.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that complainant no.1 entered into an agreement with the o.ps. for availing of the membership of o.ps. with the condition that she will have to pay Rs.90,000/-, initially she paid Rs.10,000/-, subsequently three cheques were issued and whenever complainant no.1 realized that she had no capacity to continue the membership she asked the o.ps. not to deposit the cheques but the o.ps. deposited one cheque and withdrew the amount of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited by complainant no.2 for the purpose of his personal expenses and in spite of information given to o.ps. the said cheque was encashed, as a result of which complainant no.1 became annoyed and she expressed her desire to withdraw the membership from the club and she requested the o.ps. to return the money. In spite of receiving such intimation prior to the encashment of the cheque the o.ps. without giving any honour to the request of complainant no.1 encashed the cheque causing financial hardship to the complainants. It is admitted fact that though the complainants took the membership but act made by o.ps. not conformity with the good gesture shown by the complainants and it was intention of o.ps. to withdraw money without waiting for any further period. Such act on the part of o.ps. shows that the request of complainant no.1 was not honoured and naturally the complainants wanted to severe any relationship with o.ps., apart from continuation of the membership. The complainants demanded the money but same was not entertained, as a result of which the complainants had to file this case. It is found from various cases that the complainants are coming before this Forum with various allegations against the o.ps. who have to only object to extort money by making false representation with the enticement of providing facilities for accommodation indifferent places to their members for which the parties are suffering for the misdeeds of o.ps. and accordingly, we hold that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.655/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% 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.
