DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 787/2008

Inder Mohan Sethi,

First Floor, 13B/4,

Sant Gadge Marg,

Northern Extension Area,                                                              

New Delhi – 110 060                                            ……Complainant 

                                      Versus

President,

Delhi Golf Club,

Dr. Zakir Hussain Road,

New Delhi – 110 003.                                            ……Opposite Party  

                                                          Date of Institution          : 02.12.2008                                                         Date of Order        : 08.02.2016

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

          According to the complainant who is a retired Indian Railway Service officer, he had applied for membership of the OP Club under “Service Category” in 1984 but in 1986 he came to know that his application was missing.  Therefore, he again applied for membership in the same category in 1986 and he was allotted registration No. S-686 dated 22.3.1986.  According to him, at the time of acceptance of his application under  “Service Category”, he was informed that the candidate should have adequate residual service of at least 2 – 2 ½  years though he had 9 ½ years service remaining and was thus eligible for the “Service Category”.  He had been continuously checking about his membership.  In 1997 he was asked to pay an additional registration fee, as applicable to his applied category, of Rs. 4500/- which was paid on 19.3.1997 and in Sept., 1997 he was invited to play a round of golf and he featured as a successful candidate.  He has stated that he has still not received any invitation to join the club.  He met various officials of the OP Club but to no effect.  He  learnt unofficially that his turn had come up in 1991-92 but he never received any letter from the OP Club which according to him  is evident that he had been given a very unfair treatment and instead of  getting his membership in the “Service Category” within 2 to 2 ½ years from the date of application even 17 years after he had applied, he has not been given any intimation but  has now learnt vide letter of March 2008 about a change of rules due to the renewal of the Delhi Golf Club lease which would affect retired Government Officers.  According to him, the OP has neither offered to refund the application money to him.  He has stated that vide letter dated 12.3.08 the OP had informed him that his name has been transferred to “Indian Business” Category and he was verbally told that he will now have to pay a minimum of Rs. 1,75,000/- for the membership.  According to him, there is deficiency of service during the processing of his application and in change of category from “Service” to “Business” without any intimation “at the time of change was affected” and enhancement of the fee.  Therefore, claiming himself to be a consumer, his prayer is that he should immediately be granted membership  and at the fees as was applicable at the time of his applying for the membership or when his membership would become due and to grant of all privileges of normal members such as giving dependent membership to his children who would have been eligible for such membership had he been granted his membership in time and to direct OP Club to  compensate him to a minimum extent of Rs. 5 Lacs for having wrongfully denied him the membership for over two decades and for suffering  terrible harassment.

          In the reply, the OP has inter-alia stated that the complainant is not a consumer as alleged and that any consideration, in full or in part has been received by the OP for the application for membership of the OP Club.  OP has denied that complainant had applied for membership under the “Service Category” in 1984.  However, it is admitted that the complainant had applied for membership in 1986 vide Registration No. IS 686 under the service category.  It is, however, denied that eligibility under the service category is decided on the basis of residual service.  It is stated that the candidates are eligible to e considered under the service category only till such time as they in service; that to the knowledge of the complainant all applications for membership are processed serial wise depending on the vacancy arising and it is  not possible to predict when a candidate’s application is considered for membership.  It is further stated that a bare perusal of the correspondence between the parties would reveal that the OP club has  responded to the letters of the complainant as and when it was possible;  that the complainant was informed on 2.11.1994 in response to his letter dated 7.10.94; that his application was only submitted on 22.1.1986 and that the Club was processing applications received during the year 1982 and that  his application would be considered as per his turn and the availability of membership. It is denied that the complainant was a successful candidate when he was invited to play a round of golf in Sept. 1997 and that those who had applied for membership to the club at around the same time and after the complainant have been invited to join the club.   It is stated that the complainant was informed about the status of his application for membership as per letter dated 27.5.86, 18.11.86, 2.11.94 and 12.3.08.  It is further stated that the complainant’s application for membership came up by him in 2004, by when the complainant had retired from service and hence was ineligible for membership under the category of Indian Service.  It is stated that the OP Club has never treated the complainant unfairly and informed the complainant vide letter dated 12.3.2008 about a change in his category of application for membership from Indian Service to Indian Business since the complainant had retired in 1995.  Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

          Complainant has filed detailed rejoinder to the reply of the OP.

          Complainant ahs filed his own affidavit in evidence.  He has relied on the documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/7.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Shusheel Kr. Raina, Office Executive of the Delhi Golf Club has been filed on behalf of OP-1 who has relied on letter, copies of which are Ex. RW1/A To RW1/C.

          Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

          We have heard the complainant and the counsel for OP and have also carefully gone through the record.

There is no document on the record to show that the complainant had applied for the membership of the OP Club under “Service Category” in 1982.  Thus, we are not inclined to believe his version to this effect.

Admittedly, at the time of applying for membership in 1986 and getting Registration No. S-686 dated 22.3.1986 he was working as an officer of the Indian Railway Service.  However, his contention that he was entitled to be given the membership within 2 to 2 ½  years from the date of registration of his membership is spineless for the simple reason that the complainant has not filed any such document on the record.  On the other hand, case of the OP in categorical terms is that on 2.11.1994 in response to the letter dated 7.10.1994 of the complainant, the complainant was informed that the OP Club was processing the applications received during the year 1982 and that his application will be considered as per his turn and the availability of membership.  Thus, the version of the complainant that many persons who had applied with him and even after him had already been invited to join the Club or that he had unofficially learnt that his turn had come up in 1991-92 but he had never received any letter from the OP Club, in the absence of any documentary  or any other cogent and convincible reasons, is liable to be discarded.  It was for the complainant to prove that the persons who had applied with him or the persons who had even applied after him had been invited for membership by ignoring his name or that his turn had come up in 1991-92 but he has not discharged his duty to the satisfaction of this Forum.

Admittedly, he was invited to play a round of golf in Sept. 1997 and he featured as a successful candidate.  However, the OP has stated that mere invitation to play a round of golf does not entitle a candidate to automatically become a member of the OP Club.  In the absence of any rules and regulations being cited by the complainant to the contrary, we are not inclined to believe that mere invitation to play a round of golf and featuring as successful candidate for the same had made the complainant eligible for getting a membership of the OP Club.

Admittedly, the complainant retired sometime in 1997. Due to his retirement and because of the amendment/change in the rules of the OP Club, his membership was transferred from “Service Category” to “Business Category”.  We do not see any reason to hold as to how the complainant continued to be eligible to the grant of membership of the OP Club to him under the “Service Category” even after his retirement.

In any case, the complainant was a prospective member of the OP Club and he had no vested right to claim membership of the OP Club on the date of allotment of Registration No. S-686 dated 22.3.1986 to him.  The allotment of a membership to him was dependent on certain facts and was also subject to certain other conditions.  Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We fortify our view with the decisions reported in  1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 743 - Satya Wati Goel (Dr.)(Mrs.) Vs Director, State Lotteries, Govt. of Sikkim & Ors, II (2003 CPJ 100(NC) - Om Prakash Sahni & Anr Vs State Bank of India & Anr. and (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 225 – Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das.  

Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a consumer or the OP has committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

     Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on  08.02.2016.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                      (N.K. GOEL) 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT   

Case No. 787/08

08.02.2016

Present –   None

        Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.    Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                             (N.K. GOEL)       MEMBER                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT