BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 16th SEPTEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos. 1645, 1648, 1650, 1651 & 1697/2008 COMPLAINT NO.1645/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.1648/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.1650/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.1651/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.1697/08 COMPLAINANT Dr. P. Vasudeva Rao, No. 1, R.M.O. Quarters, 22nd Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Opp. Rajive Gandhi University Science, Bangalore 560 041. Advocate (S. Shankarachar) K.S. Murali Mohan, S/o. Sheshadri, Aged about 45 years, R/at No. 214, Opp. Samvrith Enclave, 2nd Stage, Kumarswamy Layout, Bangalore. Advocate (G.T. Thippeswamy) Shrinivas. J. No. 23, First Main Road, Third Block, Third Stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Ravikiran. B.J. No. 23, First Main Road, Third Block, Third Stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Nagaraj, S/o. Late K. Madegowda, Aged about 52 years, Residing at No. 336, 8th Cross, Lakshmi Road, Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore 560 027. Advocate (R.V. Manoj Kumar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd., Reg. Office Amruth Castle, 5-9-16, Sai Fabad, Opp. Secretariate, Hyderabad 500 063. Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd., Member Relation Division, No. 847/1 (Adj. to Post Office) 100 ft. Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. No. 473, Mahapaddama, 1st Main Road, 1st Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. 3. M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd., No. 273, 1st Main Road, Defence Colony, H.A.L. 2nd Stage, Hyderabad 500 038. Rep. by its Administrative Officer Advocate (S.M. Manjunatha) O R D E R These are the complaints filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) seeking for refund of the amount paid by them and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. As the opposite parties are common, the question involved and relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning in the interest of justice these cases stand disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under: These complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, thought of becoming a member of the OP scheme that too complainant in complaint No.1645/08 became the member of Super Cool Card and rest of the complainants in complaint No. 1648/08, 1650/08 and 1651/08 became the members of Mr. Cool Card and complainant in complaint No. 1697/08 sought for Life Membership with the OP club. Then all these complainants went on paying the amount as demanded by the OP in pursuance of the facilities that is going to be provided as well as the relief including that of allotment of a complementary site are concerned. For the convenience sake the amount paid by each one of these complainants is noted in a chart below. Complaint No. Mr. Cool Membership Life Membership Amount paid Date Date of Legal Notice 1645/08 Super Cool Member Rs.1,99,000/- 27.12.05 14.10.06 25.04.07 14.03.08 1648/08 Mr. Cool Member Rs.1,25,000/- June 06 to July 07 13.12.07 1650/08 Mr. Cool Member Rs.1,25,000/- August 06 to August 07 1651/08 Mr. Cool Member Rs.1,20,000/- August 06 to August 07 1697/08 Life Member Rs.20,000/- January 98 10.05.08 Thereafter OP somehow failed to keep up its promise inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. OP neither allotted a complementary site as promised nor refunded the said amount though collected all the necessary amount including stamp duty and registration charges. Complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though they invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Though complainants in complaint No. 1645/08, 1648/08 and 1697/08 got issued the legal notice to the OP, again there was no response. Under the circumstances complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the relief accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version in all these complaints. The defence set out by the OP is almost identical and similar. According to the OP though they are ready to register the plot as promised, complainants have not came forward to make payment of the registration charges and stamp duty charges within 30 days as contemplated. Under the circumstances the plots which were available in Tumkur coconut grove have been disposed of to the other eligible members. Even till today OP are ready to allot the plot near Bagepalli, but somehow complainants have not come forward to accept the said offer and also failed to pay the necessary charges. Hence there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The delay in allotment of the plots is mainly because of the default on the part of the complainants, for that OP cannot be blamed. Though complainants have extensively utilized the club services in one or the other way, have come up with this false and frivolous complainant, just to get themselves illegally enriched. The approach of the complainants is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed their respective affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants became the member of the OP club in one or the other category of membership namely either Super Cool Member or Mr. Cool Member or a Life Member as noted in the chart mentioned above. It is also not at dispute that complainants went on paying the amount with a fond hope of getting the complementary plots along with the other club facilities and a free plot. The receipt of the said amount as noted in the chart is not denied by the OP. Now it is the grievance of the complainants that though they invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP collected all the necessary charges including that of stamp duty and the registration charges, but still failed to register the plot in their favour. Thus complainants felt the deficiency in service. 9. The evidence of the complainants which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of these complainants. It is a quality of evidence that is important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to save their skin out of sin and to avoid their liability and responsibility. The document produced by the complainant clearly goes to show that complainants did pay the necessary charges of registration as well as stamp duty. Now OP cannot speak against its own documents, OP is liable to register a plot and execute the sale deed at Tumkur in coconut grove. The defence now set out by the OP goes to show that no such plots are available at their disposal at Tumkur coconut grove as they are already disposed of. They are ready to allot the plot at Bagepalli for which complainants are not agreeable. 10. Of course complainants have not produced any other document to show that in coconut grove at Tumkur the layout formed by the OP there are still certain vacant plots of certain dimensions free from all encumbrances, approved by the statutory authority are available at the disposal of the OP. When there is no document to substantiate the said material fact, now we cannot direct OP to register a plot at coconut grove in Tumkur. Of course it is the choice of the complainants to accept the plot at Bagepalli Layout if it is convenient for them. It appears complainants not interested in Bagepalli Layout, that is the reason complainants sought for the refund of the amount which they have paid to the OP. The fact that complainants enjoyed the other club facilities for all these years is not at dispute. Only the grievance of the complainants is that OP failed to register a plot as per the promises as a complementary and one free in pursuance of they becoming member of a Super Cool Card or Mr. Cool Card project and the scheme. 11. Of course the complainant in complaint No. 1697/08 has contended that though he paid Rs.20,000/- in January 1998, OP failed to issue the life membership card, he waited patiently for more than 10 years, then caused the legal notice on 10.05.2008. Again there was no response. So OP having retained the said huge amount for all these years without issuing the Life Membership Card accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Here we find the deficiency in service. The complainant in complaint No. 1648/08, though invested his hard earned money of Rs.1,25,000/-, OP failed to keep up its promise. The approach of the OP does not appears to be as very much fair and honest. 12. As regards complaint No. 1650/08 and 1651/08 wherein both the brothers became the member of the OP scheme have also invested their hard earned money. The fact that complainant Mr. J. Srinivas enjoyed the Platinum Membership from July 2005, then Gold Crown Membership from April 2006 is not at dispute. In our view they cannot claim the refund of the amount paid towards the said membership. But as far as the amount paid from August 2006 for upgrading to Mr. Cool Membership as well as payment of registration charges, which will come to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- he is entitled for the refund because there is a default caused by the OP. It is so with complainant Mr. Ravikiran. B.J. also, he too enjoyed the Platinum Membership in 2005 and upgraded to Gold Crown membership in 2006. He is also not entitled for the refund of the said amount, but after upgradation to Cool Membership in August 2006. When he paid the registration charges, etc., in all to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- he is entitled for the refund. The complainant in complaint No. 1645/08 a Super Cool Member though paid Rs.1,99,000/-, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. 13. Naturally all these complainants must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. The hostile attitude of the OP must have caused them some kind of inconvenience and harassment. Having considered all these facts and circumstances we find these are the fit cases, wherein the complainants are entitled for the refund of whatever the amount they have paid to the so called card scheme referred to with interest and litigation cost along with some token of compensation. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints are allowed. In complaint No. 1645/08 OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,99,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from May 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No. 1648/08 OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from August 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No. 1650/08 OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from August 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No. 1651/08 OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from August 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No. 1697/08 OPs are directed to refund Rs.20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from February 1998 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. The original order shall be kept in the file of complaint No. 1645/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 16th day of September 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.
......................A.M. BENNUR ......................SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA ......................SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
