BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 5^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant seeks direction against the OPs to refund Rs.40,000/- with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant having paid Rs.40,000/-, received a letter from OPs with membership number and OPs promised to provide club facilities and stay at club at free of costs.  But, OPs neither provided the service nor refunded the amount. Therefore, by issuing legal notice dated 02.03.2021, the complainant called upon the OPs to refund the amount with compensation.  But, OPs failed to comply the request of the complainant.  The Ops have committed deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint.

3. In response of the notice, the OPs appear and file version.  They contend that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action.  The complaint filed after lapse of 8 years is barred by limitation.

4. The OPs admit receipt of Rs.40,000/- under purchase agreement dated 07.08.2012.  The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of purchase agreement.  In fact, the complainant is liable to pay annual maintenance amount of Rs.55,446/- + taxes. There is no deficiency of service.  The complainant is not entitled for other refund of amount or compensation.  OPs request to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on four documents.  The affidavit evidence of Legal officer of OP has been filed.  But, no documents are produced. Despite opportunity granted, no argument has been advanced. 

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point Nos.1 and 2:  In the negative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Both the parties reiterated their respective contentions in their affidavit evidence.  It is admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- to the OPs on 07.08.2012.  The OPs admit receipt of this amount.  Annexure-A4 letter of the OPs clearly indicates that complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- towards membership fee on 07.08.2012.  Even though, OPs refer purchase agreement.  But, purchase agreement does not find the light of the day.  The letter of the OPs under Annexure-A4 clearly indicates that the complainant being the member was required to pay Rs.6,000/- annual administrative charges early irrespective of usage of facilities.  It is not the case of the complainant that after accepting the membership, he paid annual administrative charges of Rs.6,000/- per annuam.
9. Even though, the complainant contends that the OPs failed to provide free club facilities and stay at club at free of costs.  But, OPs failed to extend the same. It is relevant to note that the complainant has not produced any document to show that after 07.08.2012 till issuance of legal notice dated 02.03.2020 he made a request to the OPs from time to time to provide club facilities and stay at club at free of cost.  The complainant got issued Annexure-A1 legal notice dated 02.03.2020 asking the OPs to refund Rs.40,000/- with interest at 18% p.a.
10. It is one of the contention of the OPs that even though membership fee is obtained on 07.08.2012, but complaint came to be filed after lapse of more than 8 years only on 16.02.2021 is barred by limitation.  Even presuming for the sake of argument that the OPs failed to extend free facility of club and stay at club after issuing membership card to the complainant in the year 2012.  But, we failed to understand why the complainant immediately not issued any letter stating that the OPs failed to provide free facility.  The silence on the part of the complainant for a long period of 8 years, clear indicates that the complainant neither requested the OPs for free facilities nor paid annual administrative charges of Rs.6,000/-.  Even though, duty is casted on the complainant to pay annual administrative charges of Rs.6,000/- p.a.  The non-payment of annual administrative charges at Rs.6,000/- p.a. it s Rs.48,000/- on the date of filing the complaint.  The complainant is the violator by not paying annual administrative charges.  No ordinary prudent man would keep quite without asking the OPs to extend free facilities and free stay in the club.  This conduct of the complainant is a clear indication that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  The complainant has utterly failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
11. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion made in point Nos.1 and 2, the complaint requires to be dismissed.   We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed, directing both the parties to bear their own costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 5^th March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-