- Mr. Som Sekhar Majumdar,
- Mrs. Sandhya Majumdar,
Flat-A-3/3 Sierra Park Apartments,
88/1, Selimpur Road, Kolkata-31. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Country Vacations, a division of
Country Club (India) Ltd.
3-6-367, 368, 369, 3rd Floor, Flat No.306,
Skill Spectrum Building, Beside Kalyana
Mandapam, Liberty “X” Road, Himayath
Nagar, Hyderabad Unit-500029.
- The Customer Care,
Country Vacations, 86B/2, 1st Floor,
Gajaraj Chambers, Park Circus Connector,
Topsia Road, Kolkata-46, P.S. Topsia. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 28 Dated 19/05/2015.
The case of the complainants in short is that complainants had purchased a Membership Plan from o.p. no.1. Pursuant to the above purchase of Membership Plan complainants had executed an agreement on 28.3.09 with o.ps. wherein it elaborately expressed what are the benefits to be allotted by o.ps. to the complainants. The said copy of the agreement has been annexed with the petition of complaint which is evident from running page 10 of the petition of complaint. Complainants stated that after the said agreement an initial payment of Rs.51,000/- was paid to o.ps. which has been evident from annex-B of the petition of complaint. Complainants further stated that the scheme under which the said services were offered by o.ps. was a non EMI scheme and complainants were not required to pay any equated monthly installment for the due amount, but that would be paid subsequently each year in due course.
Complainant further stated that after the execution of the said agreement o.p. no.2 took the said agreement inside their office and promised to return the said agreement after complying internal requirements to the complainants. O.p. no.2 inserted numeric “18” on the space besides “number of EMIs” which is evident from running page 11 of the petition of complaint.
Complainants further stated that it has stated in the agreement that if the company does not receive 50% of the total purchase price within 4 months time from the date of agreement membership value would be below Rs.1,50,000/- if it is within 6 months membership value would be above Rs.1,50,000/-. The plot in question as stated in the agreement would be taken back by o.ps. and available suitable plot will be given to complainants from any of their ventures once the company receipts 50% of the total purchase price.
Complainants further stated that in the 2nd week of April 2009 shortly after execution of the said agreement o.ps. demanded the complainants to pay the due amount immediately, failing which they cancel the membership of the complainants. Thereafter complainants being harassed communicated a letter dt.28.4.09 narrated the whole incident to o.p. no.2 and the copy of the said letter has been annexed as annex-C with the petition of complaint. complainants further stated that o.ps. even then did not provide any service as promised under the said agreement and continued to harass them by not refunding initial payment made by complainants or whatsoever. Complainants further stated that even after a great deal of persuasion complainants did not receive any plot of land or even get back the initial deposition of Rs.51,000/- to o.ps. Under such condition complainants filed the instant case before this Forum with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.ps. appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing w/v. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. categorically denied that complainants were not to require to pay any equated monthly installment. Besides, o.ps. stated that complainants purchased the membership of Rs.1,70,000/- out of which they paid only Rs.51,000/- at the time of execution of the said membership agreement and remaining of Rs.1,19,000/- to be paid by 18 monthly installments.
Ld. lawyer of o.ps. stated that when complainants had not complied the entire agreed amount so the question of deficiency of service as service provider by o.ps. to complainants does not arise. As such, ld. lawyer of o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case since they have not any deficiency towards the complainants as stated hereinabove.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of both the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we find that o.ps. made deficiency of service being service providers to the consumers /complainants since complainants since complainants paid the initial payment of Rs.51,000/- and the other portion of the agreement in respect of deposition of money was made later on.
In view of the above, this Forum hold that o.ps. made any deficiency of service to the complainants and as such, complainants have substantiate their case and are entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.51,000/- (Rupees fifty one thousand) only to the complainants which has been deposited by the complainants to o.ps. and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five 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.
