Date of Filing: 07/07/2011

        Date of Order: 27/08/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 27^th DAY OF AUGUST 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 1242 OF 2011

Naveen Kumar K.G

# 33, 1^st Floor, 3^rd Main,

Near SAI BABA Temple,

Vasanthpur Main Road, Kalyani Nagar,

Bangalore-560 061.

(Rep. by Advocate K.G. Prathap Kumar)                                      Complainant.

-V/s-

Country Vacations International

Holiday Club,

(1) Registered Office:

The Country Vacations International Holiday Club,

6-3-1219 Begumpet,

Hyderabad-500 016.

(2) Branch address:

# 4, 1^st & 3^rd Floor, S.V. Towers,

Krishna Industrial Area, Hosur Road,

Between Christ College & Forum,

Koramangala, Bangalore-560 029.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri. Somashekara Reddy)                        Opposite parties.

BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

            The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,562/-, are necessary:-

            There was a call from the representative of the opposite party stating that the complainant has been selected as a winner in their lucky dip and asked him to come and collect the Gift.  Accordingly the complainant and his wife went to the second opposite party wherein Rubin of phone No.9902266318 told the complainant that they can collect the Gift after an hour session and took them to different offers of the Holiday Vacations in 180 countries for two weeks and if the complainant book the room for 45 days prior, then another week would be given as a complementary in a year and for this the complainant have to pay Rs.1,28,000/-.  He has also told that they had tie up with ABN AMRO, HDFC, HSBC, SBI banks and if the complainants swipe any credit card of any of these banks the amount will be paid to them and it will be converted to 36 months EMIs with 0% interest and no extra cost and the complainant could pay 36 EMIs to the Bank.  This was affordable to the complainant.  Then Mr. Rubin took the complainant to Muzzafar of phone No.8095484990 and the said Muzzafar told that the RBS Banks have taken over ABN AMRO and the complainant could swipe this RBS Bank’s credit card.  The complainant tried to contact the customer care of the RBS Bank but it was not availabel, then Muzzafar contacted his finance department and said there is no problem, the complainant could swipe the credit cards of the RBS bank and if 36 monthly EMIs were not available then they will pay back the amount to the complainant and they will make available credit card so that the complainant could pay in 36 EMIs and they can get the membership of the opposite party.  Accordingly the complainant swiped the credit card and paid Rs.5,000/- from the HDFC credit card and Rs.1,23,000/- from the RBS credit card.  But later when the statement of RBS Bank had come he found they had charged the interest also and when contacted the customer care of the said Bank it has told that the complainant that they had no tie up with the opposite parties, the complainant has to pay interest, there is no EMIs, only if the complainant pays the full amount no interest will be charged.  The complainant was shocked.  He contacted Muzzafar who assured that he will pay Rs.10,000/- now to ease and they will look to the matter so that they can get credit card of another bank with enhanced the credit limit with ‘0’ interest charged and the complainant can repay the same with 36 EMIs as assured and the complainant waited for some time.  The complainant accepted the offer.  Nothing happened.  The complainant contacted the said Muzzafar again and again who had changed the telephone No.8095484990, 9844915334, 9008799133 and the complainant also contacted the said Muzzafar several times in the office.  At one time the complainant called the Muzzafar for 18 times in a single day, who did not cared to reply but the RBS Bank is demanding the complainant to pay back the entire amount with interest.  The complainant also sent e-mails to the Muzzafar on 18.08.2010 and also contacted him.  Later the complainant came to know that Muzzafar is not in the service of the opposite party, when he went to the opposite party’s office where Rubin told this to him and took him to Neeshma S Sanil, who also did the same thing to the complainant promising and promising that she will resolve the issue by providing another credit card and complainant need not worry and she said that she will give a call.  They have also promised that the amount will be repaid to the complainant with interest and the complainant could surrender the credit card.  The complainant went to her on the next day she told that she was admitted to the hospital this is false one.  The complainant wanted the number of the manager Mr. Praveen that was also not given by her.  On taking appointment in the weekend he contacted Mr. Praveen and explained the matter.  He also promised to resolve the issue but nothing has been done.  Finally the Bank forced the complainant, who paid Rs.1,09,600/- to the bank and now they are demanding the payment of Rs.45,962/-.  Hence the complainant seeking refund of the amount paid to the Bank and also compensation.

2.        The opposite party No.1 though served remained absent.  Opposite party No.2 the Branch of opposite party No.1 appeared and filed their version.  In brief the version of opposite party No.2 are:-

This forum has no territorial jurisdiction.  There is no deficiency in service.  The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and became its member.  It is a non-refundable deposit.  The complainant never utilized the services of the opposite party’s club.  The opposite party No.2 is ready and willing to offer the membership facilities.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.        To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents.  The complainant has filed written arguments.  The arguments were heard.

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. Whether this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction?
3. What order?

5.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A):In the Positive

Point (B)       :           Has jurisdiction

Pont (C):As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (B):-

6.        The pleadings of the parties are summarized supra, the same be read herein again.  Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record it is an admitted fact that the first and second opposite parties are one and the same one is the Head Office and another is the Branch Office, the opposite parties are in the holiday Business.  It is also an undisputed fact that the complainant had become a member of the opposite party by paying Rs.1,28,000/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has not utilized the holiday service or the club services of the complainant from day one till day.

7.        The contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties called him stating that the complainant is a winner of a lucky dip and the complainant has to come.  Accordingly he visited the opposite party wherein Mr. Rubin of telephone No.9902266318 contacted him told him that the complainant and his wife has to spend one hour for a session and later they could collect the prize and he contacted Mr.Muzzafar of phone No.8095484990 the manager made the offer.  None of these things are specifically challenged or denied by the opposite parties.  Neither Rubin nor Muzzafar have filed any counter affidavit, nor they being the part of the opposite parties nor they assuring the complainant denied.  Hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the opposite parties.

8.        However it is alleged by the complainant that Muzzafar the manager had told the complainant that he could swipe the credit card with respect to the membership fee so that he could repay the same to the bank in 36 EMIs with 0% interest and they had tie up with the Bank of the complainant.  Further Mr. Muzzafar had told the complainant that in case of any difficulty they will pay the amount to the complainant and arrange for credit card so that the complainant could swipe the amount and pay the amount to the bank in 36 EMIs in 0% interest.  The complainant tried contacted the RBS bank but it was not available; the Muzzafar contacted the finance department reassured.  Accordingly the amount was paid.  That means an assurance was made that the complainant need not pay any interest to the amount to the bank accordingly he swiped the credit card to become the member.  This is an unfair trade practice committed by the Muzzafar and Rubin.  If it were to be false Muzzafar and Rubin would have filed their affidavits.  Why he has not filed?

9.        Further the complainant has stated and sworn to that he got the statement of the credit card in the month of May-2010, he was shocked to see that the Bank has charged interest.  He contacted RBS bank and they told him that they have no tie up with the opposite party and the complainant is bound to pay interest and if he wants to save interest he has to pay the entire amount in lumpsum.  Hence he contacted Mr. Muzzafar several times who promised to resolve the issue or providing a credit card and 0% interest and payment of the amount in 36 installments and discussed with Rubin and Neeshma S Sanil the officers of the opposite party and Praveen of the opposite party.  All these statements of the complainant is fully corroborated by the e-mails between the parties.  There is nothing to disbelieve these e-mails.  The opposite parties never denied these e-mails nor challenged these e-mails.  Neither Neeshma S Sanil nor Praveen nor Muzzafar have denied these statements of the complainant.  Nor per contra material is placed by the opposite parties.  That means making the complainant to become the member of the opposite party by paying Rs.1,28,000/- in a limpsum asking him to repay it in installments to the Bank with 0% interest is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant could not even invested so much of money with the opposite party limpsum he could not pay interest to the Bank hence he sought refund of the money.  Muzzafar the then manager had agreed, Neeshma S Sheety the officers of the opposite party has agreed.  All these things were also done in presence of the Rubin the in-charge manager then.  Hence the opposite party is liable to refund the amount, they cannot keep other’s money.  The complainant wanted installments so that could pay fourth, as it has not been available he has not utilized any of the club membership or club facility of the opposite party.  When the basic thing itself has been denied.  How can the complainant use the club facility.

10.      The opposite party wanted the complainant or its customers to become their members by paying huge amount and later forgot giving anything to them as promised so that they can enrich themselves.  This is nothing but an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.  Here the opposite parties have received Rs.1,28,000/-, this they have to pay with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as they have not provided the complainant with 0% interest facility nor the bank has promised of paying it in installments and the banks have charged interest it is for opposite party to return the entire amount to the complainant.

11.      In this case it was contended in the version that this Forum has no jurisdiction.  Here the cause of action arose at Bangalore the amount has been paid at Bangalore, the transaction took place at Bangalore, merely head office of the opposite parties are at Hyderabad how can any cause of action arose at Hyderabad?  There is no answer.  Hence this contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction is an untenable one.  Further if any of the two forum or two places have jurisdiction where cause of action arose at two places then the party can restrict the cause of action at one place, but not otherwise.  In case the jurisdiction arose only at Bangalore.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 23.05.2010 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.

3.       The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.

4.       The opposite parties are directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above through DD by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 27^th  Day of August 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT