COMPLAINT FILED: 28.08.2008<br /> <br /> 06th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1897/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. George Jayasuriya,<br /> No. 145, Sathyanarayana Layout,<br /> Near Shanker Mutt,<br /> Basveshwaranagar,<br /> Bangalore – 79.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Managing Director,<br /> The Country Club India Ltd., (CCIL)<br /> No. 273, 1st Main, <br /> Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Country Club (India)Ltd.,<br /> 675, 9th “A” Main,<br /> Indiranagar, 1st Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (S.M. Manjunatha)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant being lured away with the marketing executives, tele talks of the OP and the brochure and the advertisement given in the newspaper, thought of becoming member of OP club. OP in addition to membership permitted the member to have free access to their health club as well as two complementary plots at Coconut Groove Layout near Tumkur and also a free one way air ticket to Goa for a couple. Complainant believed and trusted the words of the OP executives and paid Rs.1,50,000/-. But thereafter somehow inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to register the plot, thus cheated the complainant. Complainant though invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went to the deaf ears of the OP. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant availed the club facilities to maximum extent for all these years. At the time of enrollment of the membership under the Mr. Life Cool Card, all the procedure are explained in detail. Complainant is expected to pay the registration and stamp duty charges within 30 days from the date of enrollment so as to register the plot at Coconut Groove in Tumkur, but he failed to do so. Thus became the defaulter. Hence OP allotted the said plots to other eligible member. Even till today OP is ready to allot and register the plot at Bagepalli if complainant is ready to pay the registration and stamp duty charges. Again there was no response from the complainant. Under such circumstances there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant became the member of Mr. Cool Life Time Card of OP and he paid Rs.1,15,000/- towards membership and Rs.35,000/- towards the plot registration. According to the complainant OP promised to allot the two plots measuring 1089 sq. ft. each at Coconut Groove Layout near Tumkur, but OP failed to do the same. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands, OP did not heed to the said requests, there was no positive response. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant failed to make payment of the necessary registration charges and stamp duty within 30 days from the date of enrollment. This defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake which is against to the contents of the admitted documents. Hence that defence does not hold much force. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. OP having retained the said Rs.1,50,000/- for all these years accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Merely because complainant availed the club facilities it will not absolve the OP from the promise made with regard to allotment of two plots at Coconut Groove Layout.<br /> <br /> 8. OP has come up with a defence that eligible members were allotted with a said plots. As the complainant defaulted himself in not paying the registration fees and stamp duty, they are helpless. Complainant has not produced any other piece of document to show that there are some plots still vacant which are at the disposal of the OP in the said Coconut Groove Layout at Tumkur and it is free from all encumbrance and that layout is approved by the so called statutory authority. So in absence of such basic proof, it is not possible for us to direct the OP to register the plot in favour of the complainant as prayed. Of course OP has come up with a strange defence that it is ready to allot the plot at Bagepalli. Again there is no proof that whether that layout at Bagepalli is duly approved by the statutory authority and whether there are some vacant plots still available at the disposal of the OP. Under the circumstances the offer made by the OP appears to be an eyewash, may be to save their skin out of sin or to shirk from their responsibility.<br /> <br /> 9. Complainant with a hope of acquiring the plots, invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances complainant must have naturally suffered both mental agony and financial loss. In our considered view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund whatever the amount that is collected from the complainant and pay some compensation towards mental agony and litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from April 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (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 06th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />