THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 83/2014

1.       The Manager,

          Country Club (India ) Ltd.,

          No.273, Defense Colony,

          HAL 2^nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038.

2.       The Manager,

          Branch Office and Area,

          Country Club (India) Ltd.,

          “Coconut Groove”,Seebi Aghrahara Village,

          Kallam Bella Hobli, Sira taluk, Tumkur District,

          Both are Rep. by its Asst. Administrative Manager. 

….Appellant/s.

(By Shri/Smt. Sreenidhi Law Chambers, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

Mr. Mohammed Younus,

S/o Mohamed Saheb,

Age about 47 years,

R/at Sufi Constructions,

M/s KGN Electricals,

Left Side, KSSIDC Industrial Estate,

B.H.Road, Tumkur.

 (By Shri/Smt. T.N.Gururaj, Adv.,)

……….. Respondent/s

:ORDERS:

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party against the order dated:17/12/2013 passed by the Tumkur District Consumer Commission, in C.C.No.111/2013.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

          The complainant by paying totally a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- has enrolled himself as a member called ‘KOOL 3820” with the Opposite Parties, wherein the complainant was assured the membership as well as a plot measuring 1089 Sq.Ft under the scheme of the Opposite Parties called “COCONUT GROOVE” situate at C.B.Agrahara Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.  But the Opposite Parties have failed to keep their assurance in allotting the site in spite of repeated requests and approaching the Opposite Parties by complainant, but the Opposite Parties got issued legal notice dated:28/08/2012 and the complainant replied the same vide letter dated:27/09/2012 asking information about the plot number, allocation etc or otherwise to return the amount collected from the complainant with interest at 18% P.A. but the Opposite Parties have failed to do so also in spite of several efforts made, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and hence, the complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties.  

3.       After receipt of notice by the District Commission, the Opposite Party appeared and filed the version admitting the membership of the complainant as Mr.KOOL CARD MEMBER but contending that the plot was a complimentary.  The Opposite Parties have specifically informed the complainant regarding the complimentary plot situate at Vedic Spa Project 1, Phase 17^th Extension, Pandiparthy Village, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh State would be registered only on payment of the full membership fees and registration only on payment of the full membership fees and registration and maintenance charges of Rs.35,000/-, but the complainant has not complied the same and that the Opposite Parties have given paper publication to that effect also in the leading daily papers like DECCAN HERALD AND PRAJAVANI on 28/05/2011 and that the Opposite Parties have also issued a legal notice dated:28.08.2012 to the complainant regarding registration of the complimentary plot and that the complainant has availed the hospitality services provided by the Opposite Parties by paying initial fees and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.  Hence, requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.       We have heard the arguments.

5.       Perused the appeal memo and order passed by Tumkur District Commission. It is not in dispute that the complainant has become a member of Mr.KOOL by paying an amount of Rs.1,45,000/-.   In this regard the Opposite Parties have issued receipts to the complainant.  It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Parties assured the complainant to allot a plot at ‘COCONUT GROOVE” Near Sira in Tumkur District.  But the Opposite Parties have failed to allot the site as assured and instead of that, the Opposite Parties offered the plot to the complainant at Ananthapur District in Andhra Pradesh and hence, the complainant was not interested to continue as a member with the Opposite Party.       

6.       Of-course, it is the duty of the Opposite Parties to act as per the promise made by the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties have received an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- by giving plenty of assurance, but failed to give the same.  In this regard, the District Commission after careful scrutiny of the documents, evidence and receipts issued by the Opposite Parties and also relying upon the citation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has come to the conclusion that there is a deficiency of service and allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,45,000/- with 9% interest along with cost, which in our opinion is just and proper.  Hence, no interference is required.  Accordingly,

:ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.   No costs.

The impugned order dated:17.12.2013 passed by Tumkur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.111/2013 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss