Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/865/2009

Masuma OOmatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Highland Holiday Homes Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

IP

10 Jun 2009

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/865/2009

Masuma OOmatia
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Highland Holiday Homes Pvt., Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Order dated 10.06.2009 ORDER Heard the complainant on admission. The complainant has filed complaint seeking direction to the opposite party company to pay return on investment on Rs. 12,500/- to the complainant as agreed with interest from 15.04.2007. The complainant had filed similar complaints before this forum and common order was passed in complaint No. 949 to 953/2008. The earlier complaints were disposed off by order dated 31.10.2008 with the following order: “All the five complaints are allowed. The opposite party company is directed to pay return on investment of Rs.12,500/- to the respective complainants. The opposite party company is also directed to pay interest at 15% p.a from 15/04/2006 till payment/realisation. The opposite party company is directed to send the intimation to the complainant about any change of address of the company by RPAD, so that the complainant does not take hardship in tracing the address of the company. The opposite party shall go on paying return on investment for the years in which the complainants do not use more than 14 days of the free holiday as per the terms of the membership. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the present proceedings to each of the complainants.” So in view of the orders passed in the earlier complaints the complainant need not file fresh complaint for getting return on investment. As per the terms and conditions of membership the opposite party is bound to pay return on investment for the years in which the complainant do not use more than 14 days of free holidays. Therefore, the complainant need not file fresh complaint. The orders passed in complaint No. 949 to 953/2008 holds good. The complainant will be at liberty to execute the orders passed in the earlier complaints. The complainant need not file separate complaint again. Therefore, the admission of fresh complaint and issuing notice to the opposite party does not arise and not necessary. Therefore, the present complaint is not admitted and the same is dismissed at admission stage itself. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER