Date of Filing:03/03/2011
Date of Order:27/04/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 27th DAY OF APRIL 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.442 OF 2011
Sri. K.G. Gurumurthy,
S/o. Govindappa,
Aged About 59 years,
No.134/1, 7th Main Road,
Pipeline West, Kasturinagar,
Near Lakshmi Venkateshwara Choultry,
Bangalore-560 026. …. Complainant.
V/s
(1) Highland Holiday Homes Pvt Ltd.,
A Unit of Cisons Group,
Cisons Complex, 150,
Montieth Road, V Floor,
Chennai-600 008.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
(2) Highland Holiday Homes Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Manipal Centre, No.47,
Dickenson Road, Unit No.S-523,
5th Mezzanine Floor, Rear Wing,
Bangalore-560 042. …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.35,500/-, are necessary:-
The second opposite party offered the membership of the club and several benefits. Accordingly the complainant became member of the opposite parties club by paying Rs.10,500/- on 02.11.2010 and it was valid till 28.10.2010. The opposite parties has issued a letter to the complainant that after the expiry of the membership period the complainant will be refunded in the form of Bank FD or NSC issued in the name of the complainant. In spite of repeated requests and demands and notice dated: 27.11.2010 the same has not been complied. Hence the complaint.
2. In this case the opposite party has engaged the service of an advocate and filed the alleged version on 08.04.2011. But the said version is neither signed nor verified by the opposite parties, but it has signed only by the advocate for the opposite party. Hence it is no version at all.
3. Subsequently the opposite party has filed their affidavit. All the opposite parties were heard, since the complainant was absent.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) : In the Negative
Point (B) : As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. The fundamentals is that, the complaint must be signed and verified by the complainant and a verifying affidavit may be filed by the complainant; similarly the version has to be signed and verified by the opposite parties and it may file verification affidavit if need be. If the pleadings does not contain the signature or verification of the concerned party it has no value of the pleading at all. The vakalath executed order under order 3 CPC does not empower the advocate to sign the pleadings of the parties, but it only empowers the advocate to file application and to file memorandum of facts in support of the interlocutory application only and conduct the case. But in this case the version is no version at all, since it has not been signed and verified by the opposite parties. Without version the evidence, affidavit is no evidence at all. Be that as it may.
7. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents and the arguments of the opposite parties it is established/admitted that the opposite parties have issued a certificate of membership to the complainant on 02.11.2000 and the complainant had become the member of the opposite party club by paying the amount of Rs.10,500/- on 28.10.2000 and this membership is valid till 28.10.2010. Neither membership certificate nor the receipt for receiving membership amount saying any conditions attached to this membership not such terms are produced by the complainant.
8. Anyway what is this membership? Why is this membership is made? For what purpose it is made? Whether between 02.11.2000 and 28.10.2010 what are the facilities available/availed/not allowed by the complainant is not at all whispered. Only looking to the title of the membership it means that the complainant is entitled to holiday resort facilities that’s all. What are the terms and conditions are not mentioned or stated.
9. The main contention of the complainant is that as per the letter dated: 28.10.2000 he is entitled to refund of this amount i.e., the face value of the certificate 16 to 18% of the maturity value as per the letter dated: 28.10.2000. This copy of the letter produced by the complainant does not show that it is addressed to the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party has denied this letter. This letter does not form part of the certificate. It does not contain signature of the complainant. Nor it is addressed to the complainant. This is only a copy of the alleged letter. No person will say that he will refund the money after 10 years that too after providing the holiday facilities. Here there is no dispute with respect to the providing services under the membership there is no deficiency. When that is the case for return of the amount, if the complainant is entitled to, he has to file a Civil Suit and not a complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Whether the opposite party is bound to return all the money, when there is no agreement? All remained question mark. Which has to be answered by elaborate pleadings, evidence, cross-examinations, before the Civil Court and not before this Forum. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
-: ORDER:-
- The Complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. 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 27th Day of April 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
