COMPLAINT FILED ON: 28.12.2010
DISPOSED ON: 02.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
2nd JULY-2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI.M.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NOs. 819/2010 & 2265/2010
COMPLAINT NO. 819/2010 COMPLAINANT | S.Devender Jain, 1078, 15th Cross, 16th Main, BTM Layout, 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560076. Advocate: PRASAD & Co. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Managing Director, Country Club (India) Ltd., # 825, 10th ‘A’ Main, Indiranagar, 1st Stage, Bangalore – 560038. Advocate: G.A.GOPI |
COMPLAINT NO. 2265/10 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY | Sri.V.H.Ravindra, S/o Late V.Hanumesh, Aged about 53 years, Residing at No.34, Girls School Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020 Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, Smt. R.Sheela, W/o Sri. V.H.Ravindra, Aged about 43 years, Residing at same address Above mentioned. Advocate: Smt.K.V.Saraswathi. V/s. 1) The Country Club (India) Ltd., Registered Office at “Amuruth Castle”, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite to Secretariat, Hyderabad – 560 063. Represented by its Managing Director. 2) The Country Club (India) Ltd., No.847/1, 100 Feet Road, Next to Indiranagar P.O. Indiranagar, Bangalore – 5060038. Advocate: M/s Sathya & Co. |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
These are the complaints filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amount paid towards Membership fees along with interest at 24% p.a. compensation of Rs.1 lakh and expenses litigation cost on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
As the OP in both the complaints is common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under:
Complainants being attracted by the offer made by OP thought of becoming members of OP’s Club under the name and style “Mr. Kool Life Membership”. OP accepted their membership and collected the amount towards membership fees. OP promised so many benefits including allotment of free sites for its members in Coconut Groves, Free Holiday packages at various locations, health club facilities and discount on hotel Amrutha Castle for life time and such other facilities but thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of their complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For the convenience sake the card membership, Membership No., amount paid, Receipt No. and date of legal notice are noted below in the chart. When the repeated requests and demands made by the complainants have gone in vain they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.
Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Card Mem ber ship | Mem -ber ship No. | Amount Paid | Receipt No. | Receipt Date | Date of Legal Notice |
01 | 819/10 | Mr.Cool Card Member ship | COOL VS 2672 | 50,000 40,000 14,000 16,000 0,05,000 1,25,000 | 16459 16460 17768 17769 17991 | 31.10.07 31.10.07 11.12.07 11.12.07 15.12.07 | |
02 | 2265/10 | Mr.Cool Card Member ship | COOL LG-7656 | 20,000 10,000 25,000 15,000 3,667 15,000 30,000 0,07,338 1,26,005 | 20103 05 30312 52264 20071055471 78998 555648 29308 | 09.10.06 02.02.07 19.02.07 10.04.07 01.10.07 02.02.08 31.01.08 08.11.08 | 23.03.10 |
3. On appearance OP filed the version. The defence set out in all the complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments made in the version are as under:
According to OP it has already issued allotment letters in favour of the complainants, allotted complimentary sites mentioned the site no., phase no. area etc. In the said letters OP has asked complainants to deposit registration and maintenance charges of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively which has not been deposited by complainants inspite of several requests and reminders. Due to the said reason OP could not register the allotted site in favour of the complainants. OP is ready for registration as soon as complainants deposit the registration charges. Inspite of several requests complainants not turned up for registration. Under these circumstances this forum can only direct the OP to register the complimentary plots on receipt of full registration fees. Complainants having utilized all the facilities are now trying to seek for refund of membership fee paid. This is not permissible under law; the place of allotment of complimentary sites has been informed by OP to all the members and the contention that the complainants have been offered a site at different location is false; OP never assured to allot the complimentary sites at Bangalore and that they had clearly informed them that the complimentary sites would be allotted at the Coconut Groove and Vedic Spa/Banyan Tree which was formed by the sister Concern of the OP; All the members knew the place of allotment of complimentary sites. Only the site numbers and the phase in which the said sites are located being mentioned in the allotment letter and there is no malafide in not mentioning the details of the place of allotment. Membership fee paid by the members is non refundable, since the same would be utilized for development, maintenance and development of the clubs and resorts across the country. Any order for refund would cause irreparable harm and loss to the OP; Complainants are enjoying the facilities provided by OP in their clubs; Complainants are not consumers and does not satisfy the said definition under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. OP is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the hospitality business and having several clubs and resorts across the country and has been providing good services to its members. OP admits the payments of membership fee in both the complaints; Prayer seeking direction to pay interest at the rate of 24% is commercial in nature and cannot be granted; Prayer seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakhs and expenses cannot be granted for the reason stated here in above; Complainants are not entitled for allotment of any complimentary plots; The non registration is due to default of the complainants who have not turned up for registration and not paid full registration charges. In the additional version filed by it is contended that complainant has suppressed the fact of utilizing free trip to Goa While filing the complaint and sought to include the same under the guise of amendment; O.P. has denied the averment that O.P. staff had quarreled and manhandled the complainant at Royal Goan Beach Club; Document produced at Annexure 1-A is false and fabricated one. Complainant entitle for complimentary plot at Vedic Spa not at Coconut grove; MGM scheme does not apply to the complainant. Among these grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, in complaint No.819/2010 complainant filed his affidavit evidence. In Complaint No. 2265/10 GPA holder of the complainant and his wife Smt.R.Sheela filed her affidavit evidence and produced GPA receipts issued by OP, copy of letter of allotment, membership applications, receipts for having paid the administration fees and correspondences, the demand notice & postal receipts. On behalf of OP Sri.Venkatesh Verma. C, Assistant Administration Manager filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of membership application allotment letter, conversion order and proposed layout plan. Complainant filed application for amendment, application allowed, Complaint amended. Additional version filed by O.P. In C.No.2265/2010 complainant filed written argument. Heard arguments from complainants side and taken as heard from OP side.
5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises 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
entitledfor the relief now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
6. 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
7. At the outset it is not in dispute that each complainant became the member of the OP’s scheme as noted in the chart. The OPs accepted their membership fees and allotted certain numbers as shown in the chart to each of the complainants. Now the main grievances of these complainants are that though OP collected the membership fees, in the year 2006 to 2008, but failed to provide the facilities offered to allot and register the complimentary sites in their favour as promised.
8. According to complainants OP promised them to allot complimentary sites; they with a sole intention of getting the complimentary sites became the members of the OP Club and paid membership fees. The receipts issued by the OP are produced. Inspite of repeated requests OP failed to fulfill its promises and extend the services offered. Both affidavit evidence and documentary evidence produced by these complainants support their cases. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony.
9. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants; the defence of the OP that whatever club membership fees paid is non-refundable has no basis. Even now OP is ready to register the documents with respect to complimentary sites in favour of the complainants, if the complainants pay the required registration fee and stamp duty. There is no basis for this defence. In C.No.819/2010. OP has not produced any documents in support of its defence that layout has been formed, sanctioned plan has been obtained from statutory authorities and the sites are readily available at its disposal free from all encumbrances as on today. Hence the version of the OP cannot be accepted. Further complainant is not entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.12,000/- incurred. While visiting Goa towards accommodation. O.P. denied it is liability in its additional version stating complainant himself arranged accommodation at another resort and voluntarily paid the amount. O.P. went to the extent of denying its own document at para 26 of its version. Further it is contended by O.P. that complainant is member under Cool VS Scheme he is entitled for only one complimentary site at vedic spa near Penugonda and not at coconut grove and additional plot under MGM would be allotted only if, Complainant introduced any new member. But as per the allotment letter dt:19-8-2007 at annexure – 3A, O.P. has allotted two complimentary free sites at Coconut grove, under MGM Scheme. As per document annexure-3 allotment letter dated:11-2-2008. O.P. allotted 3 sites bearing No.244, 245, 218, at Coconut Grove phase XVII. Hence version of O.P. that complainant is entitled for only one site cannot be accepted. In C.No.2265/2010 O.P. has produced un approved layout plan and the conversion order produced is not in the name of O.P. It is in no way concerned with O.P. Hence the defence of the O.P. that it is ready to register the sites cannot be accepted.
10. Though OP received such a huge amount from these complainants and issued allotment letters to the complainants failed to register the complimentary sites as promised and failed to supply the basic information regarding the location of the plots, details of the layout approved sanction plan etc. Inspite of repeated requests and correspondences OP failed to respond properly. Failure of the OP to form any layout duly approved and in not registering complimentary plots in favour of the complainants as promised is deficiency in service on its part.
11. Complainants have claimed compensation for of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony; pain and suffering. Awarding interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. on the amount paid can be taken as compensation. We are satisfied that complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under these circumstances complainants are entitled for certain reliefs. In our view ends of justice would be met by directing the OP to refund whatever the amount it has received from these complainants towards membership fees, administration charges along with interest and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints are allowed in part.
1. In complaint No.819/2010 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
2. In complaint No.2265/10 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,26,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.819/2010 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
(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 2nd day of July 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
RK.
COMPLAINT FILED ON: 28.12.2010
DISPOSED ON: 02.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
2nd JULY-2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI.M.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NOs. 819/2010 & 2265/2010
COMPLAINT NO. 819/2010 COMPLAINANT | S.Devender Jain, 1078, 15th Cross, 16th Main, BTM Layout, 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560076. Advocate: PRASAD & Co. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Managing Director, Country Club (India) Ltd., # 825, 10th ‘A’ Main, Indiranagar, 1st Stage, Bangalore – 560038. Advocate: G.A.GOPI |
COMPLAINT NO. 2265/10 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY | Sri.V.H.Ravindra, S/o Late V.Hanumesh, Aged about 53 years, Residing at No.34, Girls School Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020 Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, Smt. R.Sheela, W/o Sri. V.H.Ravindra, Aged about 43 years, Residing at same address Above mentioned. Advocate: Smt.K.V.Saraswathi. V/s. 1) The Country Club (India) Ltd., Registered Office at “Amuruth Castle”, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite to Secretariat, Hyderabad – 560 063. Represented by its Managing Director. 2) The Country Club (India) Ltd., No.847/1, 100 Feet Road, Next to Indiranagar P.O. Indiranagar, Bangalore – 5060038. Advocate: M/s Sathya & Co. |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
These are the complaints filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amount paid towards Membership fees along with interest at 24% p.a. compensation of Rs.1 lakh and expenses litigation cost on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
As the OP in both the complaints is common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under:
Complainants being attracted by the offer made by OP thought of becoming members of OP’s Club under the name and style “Mr. Kool Life Membership”. OP accepted their membership and collected the amount towards membership fees. OP promised so many benefits including allotment of free sites for its members in Coconut Groves, Free Holiday packages at various locations, health club facilities and discount on hotel Amrutha Castle for life time and such other facilities but thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of their complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For the convenience sake the card membership, Membership No., amount paid, Receipt No. and date of legal notice are noted below in the chart. When the repeated requests and demands made by the complainants have gone in vain they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.
Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Card Mem ber ship | Mem -ber ship No. | Amount Paid | Receipt No. | Receipt Date | Date of Legal Notice |
01 | 819/10 | Mr.Cool Card Member ship | COOL VS 2672 | 50,000 40,000 14,000 16,000 0,05,000 1,25,000 | 16459 16460 17768 17769 17991 | 31.10.07 31.10.07 11.12.07 11.12.07 15.12.07 | |
02 | 2265/10 | Mr.Cool Card Member ship | COOL LG-7656 | 20,000 10,000 25,000 15,000 3,667 15,000 30,000 0,07,338 1,26,005 | 20103 05 30312 52264 20071055471 78998 555648 29308 | 09.10.06 02.02.07 19.02.07 10.04.07 01.10.07 02.02.08 31.01.08 08.11.08 | 23.03.10 |
3. On appearance OP filed the version. The defence set out in all the complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments made in the version are as under:
According to OP it has already issued allotment letters in favour of the complainants, allotted complimentary sites mentioned the site no., phase no. area etc. In the said letters OP has asked complainants to deposit registration and maintenance charges of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively which has not been deposited by complainants inspite of several requests and reminders. Due to the said reason OP could not register the allotted site in favour of the complainants. OP is ready for registration as soon as complainants deposit the registration charges. Inspite of several requests complainants not turned up for registration. Under these circumstances this forum can only direct the OP to register the complimentary plots on receipt of full registration fees. Complainants having utilized all the facilities are now trying to seek for refund of membership fee paid. This is not permissible under law; the place of allotment of complimentary sites has been informed by OP to all the members and the contention that the complainants have been offered a site at different location is false; OP never assured to allot the complimentary sites at Bangalore and that they had clearly informed them that the complimentary sites would be allotted at the Coconut Groove and Vedic Spa/Banyan Tree which was formed by the sister Concern of the OP; All the members knew the place of allotment of complimentary sites. Only the site numbers and the phase in which the said sites are located being mentioned in the allotment letter and there is no malafide in not mentioning the details of the place of allotment. Membership fee paid by the members is non refundable, since the same would be utilized for development, maintenance and development of the clubs and resorts across the country. Any order for refund would cause irreparable harm and loss to the OP; Complainants are enjoying the facilities provided by OP in their clubs; Complainants are not consumers and does not satisfy the said definition under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. OP is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the hospitality business and having several clubs and resorts across the country and has been providing good services to its members. OP admits the payments of membership fee in both the complaints; Prayer seeking direction to pay interest at the rate of 24% is commercial in nature and cannot be granted; Prayer seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakhs and expenses cannot be granted for the reason stated here in above; Complainants are not entitled for allotment of any complimentary plots; The non registration is due to default of the complainants who have not turned up for registration and not paid full registration charges. In the additional version filed by it is contended that complainant has suppressed the fact of utilizing free trip to Goa While filing the complaint and sought to include the same under the guise of amendment; O.P. has denied the averment that O.P. staff had quarreled and manhandled the complainant at Royal Goan Beach Club; Document produced at Annexure 1-A is false and fabricated one. Complainant entitle for complimentary plot at Vedic Spa not at Coconut grove; MGM scheme does not apply to the complainant. Among these grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, in complaint No.819/2010 complainant filed his affidavit evidence. In Complaint No. 2265/10 GPA holder of the complainant and his wife Smt.R.Sheela filed her affidavit evidence and produced GPA receipts issued by OP, copy of letter of allotment, membership applications, receipts for having paid the administration fees and correspondences, the demand notice & postal receipts. On behalf of OP Sri.Venkatesh Verma. C, Assistant Administration Manager filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of membership application allotment letter, conversion order and proposed layout plan. Complainant filed application for amendment, application allowed, Complaint amended. Additional version filed by O.P. In C.No.2265/2010 complainant filed written argument. Heard arguments from complainants side and taken as heard from OP side.
5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises 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
entitledfor the relief now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
6. 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
7. At the outset it is not in dispute that each complainant became the member of the OP’s scheme as noted in the chart. The OPs accepted their membership fees and allotted certain numbers as shown in the chart to each of the complainants. Now the main grievances of these complainants are that though OP collected the membership fees, in the year 2006 to 2008, but failed to provide the facilities offered to allot and register the complimentary sites in their favour as promised.
8. According to complainants OP promised them to allot complimentary sites; they with a sole intention of getting the complimentary sites became the members of the OP Club and paid membership fees. The receipts issued by the OP are produced. Inspite of repeated requests OP failed to fulfill its promises and extend the services offered. Both affidavit evidence and documentary evidence produced by these complainants support their cases. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony.
9. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants; the defence of the OP that whatever club membership fees paid is non-refundable has no basis. Even now OP is ready to register the documents with respect to complimentary sites in favour of the complainants, if the complainants pay the required registration fee and stamp duty. There is no basis for this defence. In C.No.819/2010. OP has not produced any documents in support of its defence that layout has been formed, sanctioned plan has been obtained from statutory authorities and the sites are readily available at its disposal free from all encumbrances as on today. Hence the version of the OP cannot be accepted. Further complainant is not entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.12,000/- incurred. While visiting Goa towards accommodation. O.P. denied it is liability in its additional version stating complainant himself arranged accommodation at another resort and voluntarily paid the amount. O.P. went to the extent of denying its own document at para 26 of its version. Further it is contended by O.P. that complainant is member under Cool VS Scheme he is entitled for only one complimentary site at vedic spa near Penugonda and not at coconut grove and additional plot under MGM would be allotted only if, Complainant introduced any new member. But as per the allotment letter dt:19-8-2007 at annexure – 3A, O.P. has allotted two complimentary free sites at Coconut grove, under MGM Scheme. As per document annexure-3 allotment letter dated:11-2-2008. O.P. allotted 3 sites bearing No.244, 245, 218, at Coconut Grove phase XVII. Hence version of O.P. that complainant is entitled for only one site cannot be accepted. In C.No.2265/2010 O.P. has produced un approved layout plan and the conversion order produced is not in the name of O.P. It is in no way concerned with O.P. Hence the defence of the O.P. that it is ready to register the sites cannot be accepted.
10. Though OP received such a huge amount from these complainants and issued allotment letters to the complainants failed to register the complimentary sites as promised and failed to supply the basic information regarding the location of the plots, details of the layout approved sanction plan etc. Inspite of repeated requests and correspondences OP failed to respond properly. Failure of the OP to form any layout duly approved and in not registering complimentary plots in favour of the complainants as promised is deficiency in service on its part.
11. Complainants have claimed compensation for of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony; pain and suffering. Awarding interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. on the amount paid can be taken as compensation. We are satisfied that complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under these circumstances complainants are entitled for certain reliefs. In our view ends of justice would be met by directing the OP to refund whatever the amount it has received from these complainants towards membership fees, administration charges along with interest and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints are allowed in part.
1. In complaint No.819/2010 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
2. In complaint No.2265/10 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,26,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.819/2010 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
(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 2nd day of July 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
RK.
COMPLAINT FILED ON: 28.12.2010
DISPOSED ON: 02.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
2nd JULY-2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI.M.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NOs. 819/2010 & 2265/2010
COMPLAINT NO. 819/2010 COMPLAINANT | S.Devender Jain, 1078, 15th Cross, 16th Main, BTM Layout, 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560076. Advocate: PRASAD & Co. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Managing Director, Country Club (India) Ltd., # 825, 10th ‘A’ Main, Indiranagar, 1st Stage, Bangalore – 560038. Advocate: G.A.GOPI |
COMPLAINT NO. 2265/10 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY | Sri.V.H.Ravindra, S/o Late V.Hanumesh, Aged about 53 years, Residing at No.34, Girls School Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020 Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, Smt. R.Sheela, W/o Sri. V.H.Ravindra, Aged about 43 years, Residing at same address Above mentioned. Advocate: Smt.K.V.Saraswathi. V/s. 1) The Country Club (India) Ltd., Registered Office at “Amuruth Castle”, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite to Secretariat, Hyderabad – 560 063. Represented by its Managing Director. 2) The Country Club (India) Ltd., No.847/1, 100 Feet Road, Next to Indiranagar P.O. Indiranagar, Bangalore – 5060038. Advocate: M/s Sathya & Co. |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
These are the complaints filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amount paid towards Membership fees along with interest at 24% p.a. compensation of Rs.1 lakh and expenses litigation cost on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
As the OP in both the complaints is common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under:
Complainants being attracted by the offer made by OP thought of becoming members of OP’s Club under the name and style “Mr. Kool Life Membership”. OP accepted their membership and collected the amount towards membership fees. OP promised so many benefits including allotment of free sites for its members in Coconut Groves, Free Holiday packages at various locations, health club facilities and discount on hotel Amrutha Castle for life time and such other facilities but thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of their complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For the convenience sake the card membership, Membership No., amount paid, Receipt No. and date of legal notice are noted below in the chart. When the repeated requests and demands made by the complainants have gone in vain they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.
Sl. No. | Complaint No. | Card Mem ber ship | Mem -ber ship No. | Amount Paid | Receipt No. | Receipt Date | Date of Legal Notice |
01 | 819/10 | Mr.Cool Card Member ship | COOL VS 2672 | 50,000 40,000 14,000 16,000 0,05,000 1,25,000 | 16459 16460 17768 17769 17991 | 31.10.07 31.10.07 11.12.07 11.12.07 15.12.07 | |
02 | 2265/10 | Mr.Cool Card Member ship | COOL LG-7656 | 20,000 10,000 25,000 15,000 3,667 15,000 30,000 0,07,338 1,26,005 | 20103 05 30312 52264 20071055471 78998 555648 29308 | 09.10.06 02.02.07 19.02.07 10.04.07 01.10.07 02.02.08 31.01.08 08.11.08 | 23.03.10 |
3. On appearance OP filed the version. The defence set out in all the complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments made in the version are as under:
According to OP it has already issued allotment letters in favour of the complainants, allotted complimentary sites mentioned the site no., phase no. area etc. In the said letters OP has asked complainants to deposit registration and maintenance charges of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively which has not been deposited by complainants inspite of several requests and reminders. Due to the said reason OP could not register the allotted site in favour of the complainants. OP is ready for registration as soon as complainants deposit the registration charges. Inspite of several requests complainants not turned up for registration. Under these circumstances this forum can only direct the OP to register the complimentary plots on receipt of full registration fees. Complainants having utilized all the facilities are now trying to seek for refund of membership fee paid. This is not permissible under law; the place of allotment of complimentary sites has been informed by OP to all the members and the contention that the complainants have been offered a site at different location is false; OP never assured to allot the complimentary sites at Bangalore and that they had clearly informed them that the complimentary sites would be allotted at the Coconut Groove and Vedic Spa/Banyan Tree which was formed by the sister Concern of the OP; All the members knew the place of allotment of complimentary sites. Only the site numbers and the phase in which the said sites are located being mentioned in the allotment letter and there is no malafide in not mentioning the details of the place of allotment. Membership fee paid by the members is non refundable, since the same would be utilized for development, maintenance and development of the clubs and resorts across the country. Any order for refund would cause irreparable harm and loss to the OP; Complainants are enjoying the facilities provided by OP in their clubs; Complainants are not consumers and does not satisfy the said definition under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. OP is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the hospitality business and having several clubs and resorts across the country and has been providing good services to its members. OP admits the payments of membership fee in both the complaints; Prayer seeking direction to pay interest at the rate of 24% is commercial in nature and cannot be granted; Prayer seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakhs and expenses cannot be granted for the reason stated here in above; Complainants are not entitled for allotment of any complimentary plots; The non registration is due to default of the complainants who have not turned up for registration and not paid full registration charges. In the additional version filed by it is contended that complainant has suppressed the fact of utilizing free trip to Goa While filing the complaint and sought to include the same under the guise of amendment; O.P. has denied the averment that O.P. staff had quarreled and manhandled the complainant at Royal Goan Beach Club; Document produced at Annexure 1-A is false and fabricated one. Complainant entitle for complimentary plot at Vedic Spa not at Coconut grove; MGM scheme does not apply to the complainant. Among these grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, in complaint No.819/2010 complainant filed his affidavit evidence. In Complaint No. 2265/10 GPA holder of the complainant and his wife Smt.R.Sheela filed her affidavit evidence and produced GPA receipts issued by OP, copy of letter of allotment, membership applications, receipts for having paid the administration fees and correspondences, the demand notice & postal receipts. On behalf of OP Sri.Venkatesh Verma. C, Assistant Administration Manager filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of membership application allotment letter, conversion order and proposed layout plan. Complainant filed application for amendment, application allowed, Complaint amended. Additional version filed by O.P. In C.No.2265/2010 complainant filed written argument. Heard arguments from complainants side and taken as heard from OP side.
5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises 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
entitledfor the relief now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
6. 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
7. At the outset it is not in dispute that each complainant became the member of the OP’s scheme as noted in the chart. The OPs accepted their membership fees and allotted certain numbers as shown in the chart to each of the complainants. Now the main grievances of these complainants are that though OP collected the membership fees, in the year 2006 to 2008, but failed to provide the facilities offered to allot and register the complimentary sites in their favour as promised.
8. According to complainants OP promised them to allot complimentary sites; they with a sole intention of getting the complimentary sites became the members of the OP Club and paid membership fees. The receipts issued by the OP are produced. Inspite of repeated requests OP failed to fulfill its promises and extend the services offered. Both affidavit evidence and documentary evidence produced by these complainants support their cases. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony.
9. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants; the defence of the OP that whatever club membership fees paid is non-refundable has no basis. Even now OP is ready to register the documents with respect to complimentary sites in favour of the complainants, if the complainants pay the required registration fee and stamp duty. There is no basis for this defence. In C.No.819/2010. OP has not produced any documents in support of its defence that layout has been formed, sanctioned plan has been obtained from statutory authorities and the sites are readily available at its disposal free from all encumbrances as on today. Hence the version of the OP cannot be accepted. Further complainant is not entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.12,000/- incurred. While visiting Goa towards accommodation. O.P. denied it is liability in its additional version stating complainant himself arranged accommodation at another resort and voluntarily paid the amount. O.P. went to the extent of denying its own document at para 26 of its version. Further it is contended by O.P. that complainant is member under Cool VS Scheme he is entitled for only one complimentary site at vedic spa near Penugonda and not at coconut grove and additional plot under MGM would be allotted only if, Complainant introduced any new member. But as per the allotment letter dt:19-8-2007 at annexure – 3A, O.P. has allotted two complimentary free sites at Coconut grove, under MGM Scheme. As per document annexure-3 allotment letter dated:11-2-2008. O.P. allotted 3 sites bearing No.244, 245, 218, at Coconut Grove phase XVII. Hence version of O.P. that complainant is entitled for only one site cannot be accepted. In C.No.2265/2010 O.P. has produced un approved layout plan and the conversion order produced is not in the name of O.P. It is in no way concerned with O.P. Hence the defence of the O.P. that it is ready to register the sites cannot be accepted.
10. Though OP received such a huge amount from these complainants and issued allotment letters to the complainants failed to register the complimentary sites as promised and failed to supply the basic information regarding the location of the plots, details of the layout approved sanction plan etc. Inspite of repeated requests and correspondences OP failed to respond properly. Failure of the OP to form any layout duly approved and in not registering complimentary plots in favour of the complainants as promised is deficiency in service on its part.
11. Complainants have claimed compensation for of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony; pain and suffering. Awarding interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. on the amount paid can be taken as compensation. We are satisfied that complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under these circumstances complainants are entitled for certain reliefs. In our view ends of justice would be met by directing the OP to refund whatever the amount it has received from these complainants towards membership fees, administration charges along with interest and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints are allowed in part.
1. In complaint No.819/2010 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
2. In complaint No.2265/10 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,26,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.819/2010 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
(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 2nd day of July 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
RK.
