Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

347/2006

Savithri ,Kalyani & others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club & others - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                         Date of Filing :   14.06.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   25.08.2015.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                      : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A.L.L.B.,                                   : MEMBER I

 

                

                          C.C.NO.347/2006

 TUESDAY THIS 25^TH   DAY OF AUGUST 2015

 

Mr. V.K.Natarajan, died by lrs.

1. Savithri (wife),

2. Kalyani (daughter),

3. Jayalakshmi (daughter),

4. V.N. Venkataraman (Son),

5. V.N. Kalyanasundaram (Son),

All at “Shree Ganesh”

No.5, Rukmani Nagar,

Mudurvoyal, Chennai -95.                                       ..Complainants

 

                                                 ..Vs..

1.  The Manager,

Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club,

Royal Goan Beach Club,

Haathi Mahal Cavelossim,

Mobor Salcettle Goa 403 731.

 

2. The Manager,

Country Vacations,

No.78, 3^rd Floor Real Diamond Building,

Mount Road, Guindy,

Chennai – 32.

 

3. The Manager, (Adminstration),

The Country Club,

(a division of Country club (India) Ltd., )

No.6-3 1213 Begumpet,

Hyderabad – 16.                                            .. Opposite parties  

 

For the Complainant                      :   M/s. S.Natarajan.    

 

For the 1^st  Opposite party             :  M/s. N.LRajah & another

For the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite party      :  M/s. V.T.Narediran & another  

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainants.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT     

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

 

        The 1^st opposite party as a Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club has purchased points from the promoter for the purpose of resale to the general public and is legally entitled to resell the same.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the resort purchased and maintained under the control of 1^st opposite party.  The complainants on becoming member and as a package deal was also given a complimentary stay at the Country Club a resort at Bannerghata, in Bangalore on 25.1.2005 to 28.1.2005.  The complainants who went to stay at Bangalore on the complimentary offer given found to his great shock and dismay that the facilities and conditions were absolutely deplorable and had to cut short his stay there, after undergoing a nightmarish stay for a night.   The complainant’s letter to the 1 to 3 opposite parties regarding the deplorable conditions, facility and shocking treatment experienced at Bangalore, was given a reply by the 1^st opposite party to approach 3^rd opposite party Country Club, in regard to the said episode at Bangalore thus washing their hands off.   The complainants by leter dated 14.2.2005 immediately sought for cancellation of his membership with the opposite parties seeking refund.  The complainants by legal notice dated 4.2.2006 called upon the opposite parties to forthwith stop sending such demand letters for Management charges refund a sum of Rs.1,29,000/- with interest for the deficiency of service in failing to provide time share despite receiving the entire cost and for the unfair trade practice.    A letter dated 14.2.2006 was given by 1^st opposite party who informed of reply shortly.  As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the complaint. 

 

Written version of  1^st opposite party  is  as follows:-

 

2.   It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 1^st opposite party submits that the complaint is prima facie filed against the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and the complainants does not have any cause of action as   against   the   1^st  opposite party.  The complainant   had   entered into a purchase agreement dated 4.11.2004 and had admitted to abide by the terms of the agreement.   Further the complainant was fully educated on the salient features of the vacation ownership and the relationship shared between the opposite parties and their respective roles and services to be rendered.  They were not aware of the non redressal of the inconveniences  faced by the complainant and had promptly informed the complainant about the possible cancellation of the membership due to nonpayment of the Management charges.  The complainant has not informed the opposite party of the alleged deficiencies in service which he has mentioned in his complaint.  The 1^st opposite party had taken due care and precaution to keep its members intimated will in advance about the various terms of the club membership and the payments to be made.  The 1^st opposite party have always tried very best to render the most professional and enjoyable holidays for its members with excellent facilities.   The letter dated 7.7.2005 and 21.7.2005 have clearly detailed their position that the complainant having purchased his membership through country vacations and the Country Vacations offered to the complainants was a complimentary stay at one of the country club properties and this was a promotional offer and does not form part of the terms of the complainant’s Royal Country Vacations Holiday Club Membership.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party had taken to do the needful.  Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

Written Version of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are as follows:

3.      It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties is a renowned management of International Holiday Club with thousands of satisfied customers.  The complainant has approached the opposite party on 4.11.2004 and an agreement has been entered between the complainant vide purchase agreement and the complainant was allotted membership NO.00494741VO and the complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions of the Membership Club and has singed terms and conditions.   The opposite parties strongly denies the allegations made in the complaint about the resort at Baneergata where the complainant has gone to and submit that the lodge is a well maintained resort which has continuous influx of tourists and members of the club and no one other than the complainant has over complained about the facilities there and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant has not come with clean hands to file a complainant against the opposite parties as the complainant has not paid the management charges to the opposite parties, which is a major income to run the management as he had agreed to under the terms of the agreement signed by him and in fact the very complaint if motivated due to the insistence of the opposite party calling upon the complainant to pay the due.

4.     The complainant became a member as on 4.11.2004 bus has approached the 2^nd opposite party prior before November and only after  he was informed about the Management charges and he has refused to pay the management charges which amount to breach of contractual obligations and he has no equity on his side though the contract clearly specifies that the management charges are due in advance of on 1^st of November of each year.  The 2^nd opposite party has given reply to all the correspondence to the complainant as on 8^th January 2005 as invoice was sent regarding the management charges payable by the complainant and time was extended till 2^nd March 2005 however the complainant failed to make the payment.    Hence  there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant.    Opposite parties have filed their proof affidavit and no documents was  marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

6.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

7.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

Perused the both side pleadings and the proof affidavit of both parties  and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10  filed on the side of the complainant and considered the both side argument.  Considering the both side case there is no dispute that the 1^st opposite party as a Royal Country vacations international holiday club has purchased points from the promoter for the purpose of reseal to the general public and is legally entitled to resell the same.    The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the resort purchased and maintained under the control of 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st deceased complainant had purchased 110 points for the purchase price of Rs.1,40,000/- and became a member of the 1^st opposite party club by entering purchase agreement marketed by 2^nd opposite party.   The Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 prove the same and the complainant was given complementary stay at the Country Club resort,  Bangalore for four days from 25^th January to 28^th January 2005 as per letter Ex.A4 given by 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st deceased complainant dated 15.1.2005 accordingly the 1^st deceased complainant went to stay there for three days and raised grievance that the accommodation facility given  in the said cottage was not proper and the water supplied there was caused illness to the complainant and despite of his notice no action taken by the opposite parties in this regard in addition to that the opposite parties have sent demand for calling the complainant to pay annual maintenance charges which are all amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  As such the 1^st deceased complainant has not willing to continue to be member of this opposite parties’ club and asked the opposite party for return of the purchase amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest and for compensation against the opposite parties.

8.     Whereas the opposite parties has resisted the complaint by stating that the allegation made by the complainant in respect of the poor facility of cottage for his stay at Bangalore and due to non supply of quality water, the complainant was suffered illness are not true and denied.  Further stated that the said stay for at Country club, Bangalore was given to the complainant as complementary one as such even there is deficiency of service the complainant is not entitled for any claim against the opposite parties.   Further stated that the complainant having  entered purchase agreement and purchase points and became a member in the opposite parties club, the complainant is bound by the condition mentioned in the purchase agreement.   As such the complainant is liable to pay annual maintenance charges to the promoter / opposite parties as per Clause.7 of the conditions which is due in advance on the first November  each year and nonpayment of the said Management charges would result in the cancellation of the defaulting Member Points of Rights.  Accordingly the complainant was called for by sending notice by the opposite party for payment of annual maintenance charges and the complainant have not paid and became defaulter and his membership was cancelled as per the condition of the purchase agreement.  Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint and the complaint is to be dismissed.

9.     It is admitted case of the complainant that the complainant has given complementary stay at the Country Club at Bangalore from 25^th January 2005 to 28^th January 2005.  Therefore as contended by the opposite parties since the stay alleged by the complainant is on the complementary for his became a member of the club even if there is a grievance and inconvenience caused for the stay that will not amount to deficiency of service and the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the same on the ground of deficiency of service is acceptable.   Further though the complainant has stated that in the said cottage in which the complainant has stayed the both rook and the fitting in the both room are not proper and caused inconvenience to the complainants the said grievance are to be meager in nature and there is no allegation on the part of the opposite party that despite of his complaint made with regard to the same at the support   or in the cottage maintenance they were not attend too.  Further there is no proof for the allegations that due to consumption of water by the complainant supplied in the cottage the complainant was suffering illness and has taken treatment at Bangalore, there is no documents for the proof of his illness and treatment for the same are produced by the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that since the said stay by the complainant is on complementary given by the opposite parties and no payment for the stay by the complainant was made as such it appears to be them considered  as such as contended by the opposite party.  The opposite parties are not liable for any damages on the ground of deficiency of service for the above grievance made by the complainant is acceptable.

10.    Further on going through the Caluse-7 of the purchase agreement Ex.A1  condition it read as follows: -

The Purchaser shall pay an Annual Management Charges to the “Promoter” as a contribution to the upkeep and maintenance of the Resorts and the administration to the Club in the Club Rules.  It is due in advance on the 1^st November each year for the following calendar year.  It is variable in accordance with the terms of the  Club Rules.  It will first become due on 1^st November prior to the First year of use as stated overleaf.  Non-Payment of the Management Charges may result in the cancellation of the defaulting Member’s Points rights.  PAYMENT TO ANY OTHER THAN THE COMPANY OR ITS NOMINEE DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE PURCHASER(S) FORM THE OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.

It is admitted case of the complainants that he has not paid any amount towards the annual  maintenance charges to be payable by the complainant as a purchaser despite of several reminders and the notice dated 7.7.2005 which is filed as Ex.A6 and also the another notice dated 21.7.2005 sent by the opposite party to the complainant.  Therefore as contended by the opposite parties the complainant being the defaulter in payment of annual maintenance charges payable as per the purchase agreement despite of notice and reminders, the membership is liable to be cancelled as the complainant has violated the conditions agreed by him in Ex.A1, the purchase agreement.  As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint is acceptable.  In support of this contention the counsel appearing for the opposite parties has cited  the decision rendered by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji – GOA in the case of

TOME A. FERNANDES & ANOTHER

..VS..

ROYAL GOAN BEACH RESORT PVT. LTD.,

Dated 23.2.2012 

It is held that

“ In our view,  it is the complainant/s who have committed the breach of the irrevocable agreement executed by them by not paying the maintenance charges of Rs.8657/- for the year 2002 and invoking the consequences of suspension of their membership.   Therefore they are not entitled to any reliefs. “

 

Therefore we are of the considered view that as discussed above the complainant having violated the condition mentioned in the purchase agreement entered by him with the opposite parties and the complainant being defaulter by not paying annual maintenance charges to be payable by him despite of repeated demands, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief sought for in the complaint against the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.  

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  25^th    day of August  2015.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-           -        - Copy of Agreement.

Ex.A2- 6.11.2004      - Copy of Receipt.

Ex.A3- 13.11.2004     - Copy of Receipt.

Ex.A4- 15.1.2005      - Copy of 2^nd opposite party’s letter.

Ex.A5- 14.2.2005      - Copy of complainant’s letter.

Ex.A6- 7.7.2005        - Copy of  1^st opposite party’s letter.

Ex.A7- 13.7.2005      - Copy of complainant’s letter.

Ex.A8- 21.7.2005      - Copy of 1^st opposite party’s letter.

Ex.A9- 4.2.2006        - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A10- 14.2.2006     - Copy of 1^st opposite party letter.  

 

Opposite parties’ side documents: -    

 

        .. Nil..

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT.