IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 80/09 DATED 29.05.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant B.S.Sridhara Raje Urs, No.435, 2nd Main, 4th Cross, Gokulam, 3rd Stage, Mysore-570002.<br /> (By Sri.g.l.Nagaraj Urs)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Managing Director, M/s Country Club (Ind.) Ltd., No.675/5, 9th Main, Indiranagar, I Stage, Bangalore-560038.<br /> 2. The Proprietor, M/s Country Club (Ind) Ltd., Prashanth Plaza, I Floor, 4th Main, 5th Cross, Saraswathipuram, Mysore-9.<br /> (By Sri.S.M.Manjunatha, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 04.03.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 08.04.2009<br /> Date of order : 29.05.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 21 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party in brief is, as he was lured by the advertisements of the opposite parties offering tour to foreign countries and accommodation to life members of that club, he paid Rs.10,000/- to the opposite parties and became a life member of their club. That the opposite parties had offered life membership for Rs.10,000/- assuring that he is not required to pay any annual payment or any other taxes attached to the membership, he had agreed to become a life member. But, after lapse of a fortnight, he was served with a notice demanding Rs.800/- towards administrative charges and Rs.300/- towards luxury tax. That he paid life membership fee on 18.12.2007 and after receipt of the letter from the opposite parties on 29.12.2007 he sent a protest letter on 08.01.2008 protesting payment of other charges as demanded and requested the opposite parties to refund the fee paid by him, but they have not responded to his protest letter dated 08.01.2008. Then he approached Akhila Bharathiya Grahaka for their respond, but the opposite parties did not respond and thereby has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to repay Rs.10,000/- with interest, to award damages of Rs.5,000/- for his mental agony and cost of this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite parties have appeared through their advocate and filed version denying allegations of the complainant and have contended that he after going through the advertisements, the complainant contacted them to become a member and he voluntarily willing to become member paid life membership of Rs.10,000/-, which is not refundable. The complainant after utilizing the facilities of the club has now come up with this complaint claiming refund of the money. That the club being the luxury club, members are required to pay luxury tax as imposed by the Government and therefore stated that the complainant is not entitled for refund of the membership fee and denying to had promised certain other facilities has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed an affidavit to read his complaint as part of his affidavit and on behalf of opposite parties one Vijay has failed his affidavit evidence. The complainant has produced receipt for having paid membership fee, copy of a letter he had received from the opposite parties dated 29.12.2007, a reply sent by him on 08.01.2008, copy of the letter he got sent through a Grahakara Panchayat. The complaint is prosecuted through an office bearer of the Grahakara Panchayat by issuing authorization. Heard the representative of the complainant, counsel for the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice while offering membership and therefore he is entitled for refund of the membership fee?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The claim of the complainant that he became a life member of opposite parties club by paying Rs.10,000/- on 18.12.2007 towards life membership fee, is admitted by the opposite parties. But, the contention of the complainant that opposite parties at the time of issuing membership had promised certain facilities and assured that no other charges will be levied on him other than the life membership fee is denied by the opposite parties by contending that even the life members are required to pay annual administrative charges and luxury tax as imposed by the State Government. But, as could be seen from the claim of the complainant, he has categorically stated that he was lured by the advertisements of the opposite parties and represented to him that if he becomes a life member of the club, he is not required to pay any other charges. Of course, the opposite parties though denied to had offered any other facilities, but has not specifically denied in they having had assured the complainant of his not liable to pay any other charges. Therefore, this allegation of the complainant has remained specifically uncontroverted. In view of this assertion and denial, we do not have any concrete evidence or witness before us to reach a conclusion, whether the opposite parties had assured that the complainant is no required to pay any other charges other than the life membership fee. Under these circumstances, we have to rely upon the materials under which the complainant is now opting for cessation of his membership from the opposite parties club.<br /> <br /> 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant paid life membership fee to the opposite parties on 18.12.2007 as asserted by him he received a letter of opposite parties dated 29.12.2007 within a fortnight and came to know the demand of opposite parties towards administrative charges and luxury taxes. It is therefore clear that within about 10 to 11 days after the complainant paid the membership fee, the opposite party wrote a letter to the complainant on 29.12.2007 requesting him to pay administrative charges of Rs.800/- and luxury tax of Rs.300/-. This development pre-supposes that the opposite parties for the first time made know the fact of his requirement to pay other charges on 29.12.2007 for the first time and not earlier. The complainant after receipt of this letter from the opposite parties dated 29.12.2007 without loss of much time on 08.01.2008 itself addressed a letter to the opposite parties expressing his surprise about the demand of Rs.800/- + Rs.300/- and in the same letter he expressed his inability to pay such charges and requested the opposite parties to refund the deposit money to avoid unpleasantness. These facts make clear that the complainant never made use of any club facilities within the short span of time and therefore we find no merits in the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant after utilizing service of the club has now approached for refund of money. If the complainant was made known of his requirement to pay any other charges earlier he would not have ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬sharply reacted to the letter of opposite parties at 29.12.2007 and sent reply on 08.01.2008 expressing his shock, inability and request to refund his money. Thus, when the complainant has opted to get his membership closed within about 20 days after becoming a member after realization his inability to pay such charges, we do not think that there is any impediment or justification for the opposite parties to deny the refund of the deposit money of the complainant as desired by him. On close scrutiny of all these facts, which undoubtedly leads to an inference that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice in luring the public to become members of their club and later on change their version to suit their convenience. Thus we are constrained to hold that the complainant has within a short time without even utilizing any service of the opposite parties has opted to be out of the membership of the club and his claim cannot be denied. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are jointly severally directed to refund the deposit of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from today (29.05.2009), failing which they shall pay interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The opposite parties shall also jointly and severally directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 29th May 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />