O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are that he agreed to become a member of the Ops club influenced by them approach of the executive of the Ops. That he accordingly became a cool card member by paying membership fee of Rs.1,15,000/-. That the Ops offered a special package offering to allot a free plot measuring 1089 sq. ft at Country Club Coconut Grove and also an extra plot measuring 1089 sq. ft under MGM scheme as per the offer letter dated 11/12/2006. That he paid the entire membership fee on 11/12/2006 and the Op had issued membership letter dated 18/12/2006 but thereafter despite lapse of more than two years and approach the Ops have failed to allot free plots and then he also got issued a legal notice on 24/10/2008 but the Ops have not acted upon it and thereby has prayed for a direction to the Ops to allot free plots measuring 1089 sq. ft at Country Club Coconut Grove and an extra plot of same dimension under MGM scheme or to refund his membership fee with interest and to award compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs and cost.<br /> <br /> Ops 1 and 2 have appeared through their advocate and filed version. Op No.1 in his version has contended that the complaint is not maintainable and denied deficiency in their service. Ops have admitted that the complainant has become a member of that club called cool life membership by paying non-refundable membership fee of Rs.1,15,000/-. It is further admitted that along with membership fee they have offered free sites as complement to the membership taken and was gift to the members. That the complainant did not get the sites registered. That they have offered to execute registered deeds even issued a paper publication in Deccan Herald News Paper on 24/06/2009 but the complainant has not got it done and stated that they are ever ready to register the site and have referred to publication they have issued in this regard in other news paper also and thereby have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint the complainant and one Vijay D.P for Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced the offer letter of the Ops, copy of the receipt for having paid membership fee, copy of other facilities offered by Ops, with a copy of legal notice he got issued. Ops have produced a copy of the application given by the complainant for allotment of membership and the copy of paper cutting contain a publication offering to execute registered documents. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments almost reproducing what the complainant has stated in the affidavit evidence and has further contended that the Ops have taken frivolous stand and that he do not want to continue his relationship with the Ops as such he do not press the first prayer for allotment of sites and has prayed for return of his membership fee. Counsel for the Ops remained absent. Hence taken as heard.<br /> <br /> On the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service in not allotting sites and executing title deeds in respect of two free sites offered?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> Point No.1 : In the affirmative<br /> Point No.2 : See the Final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> Answer on Point No.1: As we have gone through the contention of rival parties, there is no dispute between them, in this complainant having had become a cool privilege card member by paying Rs.1,15,000/- as membership fee and that the Ops have offered one free plot measuring 1089 sq. ft at Country Club Coconut Grove and another site under MGM Scheme as an extra plot measuring 1089 sq. ft besides other facilities offered by the Ops. As these facts are not disputed, the only dispute between the Parties remains for decision is regarding non-allotment of two free plots as promised.<br /> <br /> It is the grievance of the complainant that despite he approaching the Ops several times Ops did not allot free sites as promised through their letter dated 11/12/2006. The complainant initially in the complaint prayed for a direction to the Ops to allot those free sites as the first relief. In the alternative to direct Ops to refund his membership fee with interest but in the written arguments the complainant has given up his prayer for allotment of plots but has asked for refund of his membership fee on the ground that he cannot trust the Ops and do not wish to continue his relationship with them. But the Ops as stated above have not controverted the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and dissatisfaction he has expressed and the relief of refund he has asked for. On considering all these facts placed before us, we find that there is nothing wrong in this complainant asking for the alternative relief of refund of membership fee because of non response or due to lack sincerity on the Ops.<br /> <br /> As seen from the offer letter of the Ops dated 11/12/2006, the Ops have offered one free plot of 1089 sq. ft that will be allotted at country club coconut grove and another extra plot of some dimensions under MGM scheme. If we carefully look at this offer, the offers in our view appears to be an uncertain and non-existing because it is not clear where that coconut grove of this Ops situated in which survey numbers they have formed sites and its location. Regarding extra plot under MGM scheme also not indicated its location, survey numbers, place or any other details. In this way it is found that the Ops have offered such type of free plots to attract the people to become their members by paying heavy amount and it is seen in some cases the Ops have offered plots at Bangalore-Poona Road, it is highly impossible to ascertain about the location of such sites through this road which runs hundreds of Kms. Similarly the offers made in this case also exhibit uncertainty. It is found that the complainant became a member on 11/12/2006 he has repeatedly stated the despite approaching the Ops they did not allot plots. Complainant got even issued a legal notice on 20/04/2008 demanding allotment of sites and execution of documents but the Ops have not either responded or replied. If the contention of the Ops that they offered to execute deeds and their issuing publication in this regard in the news paper was really genuine and they had intension to allot sites they could have first allotted free plots to the complainant showing the plots numbers location etc., and then tell the complainant to get documents registered by meeting registration expenditure but it is evident that the Ops have not even come forward to prove that they have formed any layout or sites at all leave alone execution of documents Through the developments that have taken place in this case, we are of the view, the claim of the opponents do not inspire confidence in us and also in the complainant. Therefore under those circumstances complainant opted for taking back his membership fee which can not be denied.<br /> <br /> The Ops have contended as if membership fee is not refundable. But it is not their case that the complainant after becoming a member has used any sort of their service like club service and other facilities offered through their offering letter. Therefore when the complainant has absolutely not availed any service of the Ops and Ops have not exhibited their earnestness and sincerity in showing some progress in the formation of layout and allotment of plots they cannot in he guise of non-refundability retain complainant’s money. Hence, complaint in our view is entitled for the alternative relief has prayed for but not for the other compensation he has sought for. Complainant it is found did not demand for refund of money earlier. Of course notice dated 24/10/2008 discloses that the complainant had requested for allotment of plots but the Op did not responded. Therefore, from that date the complainant would become entitle for interest on the money to be refunded. With the result, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. Ops 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held as liable to refund Rs.1,15,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 15% per annum from 24/10/2008 till it is repaid. <br /> <br /> Ops shall also refund that amount within 60 days from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 15th April 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />