Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 13-08-2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, 24 Parganas (South) in C.C. No. 20/2013, Complainant thereof has preferred this Appeal.

Case of the Complainant, in a brief compass, is that, she took a Membership of the OPs after making an initial payment of Rs. 26,570/-.  Thereafter, she paid EMIs @ Rs. 6,777/- p.m. for some months.  Meanwhile, she faced some financial constraints on account of her treatment and footing the educational expenses of her son.  Therefore, she requested the OPs to terminate her membership and refund the deposited sum.  However, the OPs did not pay any heed to her request.  In such circumstances, she filed the instant complaint.

Defending their case, it is stated by the OPs in the form of a W.V. that the Complainant took the Membership after understanding all the terms and conditions of such Membership.  It is the further case of the OPs that the Contract signed by a Member can only be terminated as per Membership Rules.  Membership Rules together with Membership kit were dispatched to the Complainant on 25-02-2011.  The total Membership Price payable by the Complainant was for a sum of Rs. 3,51,866/-.  The product price amounted to Rs. 2,65,702/-.  The Complainant made down payment for a sum of Rs. 26,570/-. The Complainant was provided with special officer of 26” SONY TV which was duly received by the Complainant.  The Complainant was further provided with Resort Credit Voucher for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-.  It is also stated that the Complainant paid only 8 EMIs @ Rs. 6,777/- amounting to Rs. 54,216/- out of the total 48 EMIs.  Thus, the total amount paid by the Complainant along with DP was Rs. 80,786/-.  It is alleged that the Complainant has been irregular in making payment of EMIs.  As per the Contract (Membership Rules), 60% of the total Membership cost or Rs. 2,65,702/- is admission fee, out of which Complainant has paid only a sum of Rs. 80,786/-.  Therefore, nothing is refundable to the Complainant. 

Point for determination is whether the impugned Order is justified or not.

Decision with reasons

The bone of contention revolves over non-refund of Membership fees by the Respondents to the Appellant.  It is argued by the Appellant that since the terms and conditions of the Membership Rules were printed on the reverse of the application form in small letters, she could not go through the same.  It is further argued from the side of the Appellant that she did not put her signature at the specified space of the application form below the terms and conditions.  Therefore, she is not bound by said Rules and Regulations as stipulated therein.

Although the Appellant has filed photocopy of the Membership Application Form in support of her contention, on going through the photocopy of another set of application form placed before the Ld. District Forum by the Respondent it appears that she did put her signature at the specified place.  Therefore, the Appellant, to our mind, cannot shrug off due responsibility to abide by the same.

It is also important to keep in mind that the Respondent stated to have forward Membership Rules along with the Membership kit to the Appellant after receipt of initial down payment from her.  There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant made known her anguish/displeasure with any terms and conditions of the Membership Rules upon receipt of the same from the Respondents. 

It is to be kept in mind that once a contract is signed, no signatory can unilaterally terminate the same.  The law of the land does not permit it. 

According to Wikipedia, a contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law as a binding legal agreement. A contract arises when the parties agree that there is an agreement. Formation of a contract generally requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound.

If the contract is formed under conditions involving mistake, misrepresentation, or fraud, the contract may be terminated, otherwise not.  In this case, the Appellant has not cast any aspiration upon the Respondents on account of any of these. 

It is also alleged by the Appellant that she never got her desired booking at the resort managed by the Respondents on the plea of non-availability.  Being frustrated of not getting value for the money and also because of her financial stringency, she decided to terminate the Membership.

In this regard, we find that the Appellant has not placed on record any cogent documentary proof to show that she ever approached the Respondents for providing due privileges but the Respondents failed to accommodate her wish.  So far personal financial hindrance of the Appellant is concerned, this cannot be a ground to coerce the other side to give in to the demand of the petitioner.  Unless any unlawful/illegal clause is incorporated, the moment a contract sets into motion, parties to such contract are bound to follow stipulated terms and conditions and there is no way out.

That being the position, we find no fault with the decision of the Ld. District Forum.  To call a spade a spade, the impugned Order is fully justified one in the given facts  and circumstances of the case. 

Accordingly, the Appeal fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That FA/192/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Forum together with the LCR forthwith.