Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

cc/09/2974

Mr. Amardatt. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2009

ORDER


BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. cc/09/2974

Mr. Amardatt.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 16.12.2009 DISPOSED ON: 03.09.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.2970, 2971, 2972, 2973, 1374 2975, 2976 & 2977/2009 COMPLAINT NO.2970/09 COMPLAINANT Zabiulla C.M., S/o Sanaulla C.M., Aged about 38 years, No.218, Seppings Road Cross, Nehrunagar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore – 560 001. COMPLAINT NO.2971/09 COMPLAINANT Nanjappa P.K., Aged about 54 years, No.3, House No.2, “Arugruaha”, 4th Main, Aiyappa Reddy Thota, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore – 560 022. COMPLAINT NO.2972/09 COMPLAINANT C.M. Arifulla, S/o Sanaulla C.M., Aged about 40 years, No.218, Seppings Road Cross, Nehrunagar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore – 560 001. COMPLAINT NO.2973/09 COMPLAINANT Almas Begum, W/o C.M. Arifulla, Aged about 34 years, No.218, Seppings Road Cross, Nehrunagar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore – 560 001. COMPLAINT NO.2974/09 COMPLAINANT Mr. Amardatt, No.190/2, Domlur, Bangalore – 560 071. COMPLAINT NO.2975/09 COMPLAINANT K.S. Lokesha, S/o K.N. Shivakumaradhya, Aged about 47 years, No.635, 3rd Cross Road, 1st ‘C’ Main Road, K.G. Layout, B.S.K. 3rd Stage, 3rd Phase, 3rd Block, Bangalore – 560 001. COMPLAINT NO.2976/09 COMPLAINANT D.N. Anantha Murthy, No.60/3, 4th Main Road, Beside B.S.V.P. Chamrajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. COMPLAINT NO.2977/09 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY Syed Nayeem, No.48, Syed Manzil, 8th Main, 15th C Cross, Bandappa Garden, Muthyal Nagar, Bangalore – 560 054. Advocate: Sri Neelakantaiah V/s. M/s Country Club (India) Ltd., No.273, 1st Main Road, Defence Colony, H.A.L. II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560 038. Rep: by its Chairman. Advocate: Sri S. Harish O R D E R SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT In all these complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the complainants seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the membership amounts paid with interest at 9% p.a. and compensation along with litigation expenses on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP in all the above complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasonings, the above cases are stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that: The object of the OP is to provide a privileges and facilities who are the members of the OP. OP utterly failed to provide facilities as per the guidelines of the OP. Hence, the subject matter of dispute deficiency of service is made by the OP. OP invited applications offering certain privilege and facilities on becoming Mr. Kool Card members. The complainants became the members by paying membership fee in part and some of the complainants paid entire membership fee. The complainants claims that they have not utilized any facility, they demanded to refund the entire amount paid as OP utterly failed to provide facilities as per the guidelines. The complainants raised loans from other friends, at present they have mental tortures and deprived of the right. They invested huge amounts with hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investments and hostile attitude of the OP, they have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Thus the complainants are seeking for refund of the amounts paid in addition they have also claiming compensation for mental agony and financial loss. The details of the membership fee, membership number, amount paid and amount admitted by OP is shown in the chart bellow: Sl. No. Complaint No. Card member ship Member ship No. Receipt No. and Date Amount claimed Admitted amount 1 2970/09 Mr. Kool Life Kool 3138 80042 31.03.08 20230 31.03.08 BAN08-4649 15.06.08 Rs.10,000 Rs.15,000 Rs.15,000 Rs.40,000 Rs.40,000 2 2971/09 Mr. Cool Vedic Spa Cool VS 1192 BAN08-13323 15.11.08 BAN08-9974 30.08.08 BAN08-16605 20.01.09 BAN08-11941 14.10.08 BAN08-7419 22.07.08 BAN08-5054 19.06.08 BAN08-18067 23.03.09 59085 24.10.07 224760 28.02.08 54759 11.07.07 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 25,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 40,000 Rs.1,15,000 Rs.1,15,000 3 2972/09 Mr. Kool Life Kool 3137 20229 31.03.08 BAN08-12789 31.10.08 BAN08-15534 25.12.08 BAN09-706 14.05.09 BAN08-1830 30.04.08 BAN09-24 06.04.09 BAN08-17497 25.02.09 80043 31.03.08 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs.1,05,000 Rs.1,05,000 4 2973/09 Mr. Kool Card Kool 3138 20228 31.03.08 80045 31.03.08 BAN08-7777 28.07.08 80044 31.03.08 Rs.15,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs.15,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs.40,000 Rs.40,000 5 2974/09 Mr. Cool Card Cool CG 2011 604 11.12.07 603 11.12.07 786 24.06.06 82615 01.03.06 83452 14.03.06 37246 31.03.08 BAN08-12496 30.03.09 Rs. 500 Rs. 3,600 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 35,000 Rs. 64,000 Rs. 3,668 Rs. 3,666 Rs.1,20,434 OP Not admitted 6 2975/09 Mr. Kool Card Kool 1534 BAN08-4791 16.06.08 BAN08-9917 30.08.08 79167 13.02.08 79091 07.02.08 19065 31.12.07 78203 31.12.07 78204 31.12.07 Rs. 50,000 Rs. 25,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 35,000 Rs. 50,000 Rs.2,00,000 Rs.1,75,000 7 2976/09 Mr. Kool Card and Mr. Kool life BLGCP 999B and Kool 1152 50807 23.04.07 32435 24.03.07 62000 26.12.07 BAN08-7411 22.07.08 BAN08-12628 31.10.08 BAN08-16447 13.01.09 BAN08-17289 16.02.09 BAN09-416 29.04.09 BAN09-1338 18.06.09 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 15,000 Rs. 22,500 Rs. 25,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 2,500 Rs.1,20,000 Rs.1,20,000 8 2977/09 Mr. Cool Vedic COOL VS 1521 225594 31.03.08 55753 31.07.07 Rs. 75,000 Rs. 50,000 Rs.1,25,000 Rs.99,000 3. On appearance, OP filed the version in all these complaints. The contentions of OP is identical. It is contended that the complaints are false, frivolous and vexatious and the same have been filed with a malafide intention of harassing OP. The prayer sought for by the complainants being ambiguous, vague and without proper description, the complaints are not maintainable. The complimentary plots are already allotted in favour of the complainants who have paid the entire membership fee, but they have failed to pay the registration and maintenance charges and they have not come forward to complete the registration process. Complimentary site would be allotted after full payment of membership fee. The membership fee is Rs.1,25,000/-. Some of the complainants have paid part of the amount. They are not entitled for the complimentary sites. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is providing all the services; complimentary sites would be allotted at Vedic Spa as soon as the complainants deposit the entire membership amount. The complainants having already utilized the services provided by OP are now trying to coerce to refund the amounts. The membership fee paid is non refundable, the complainants failed to show the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complainants have not given any details regarding the alleged violation of the terms and conditions by the OP. The allegation that the terms and conditions were not complied by OP is a bald statement without any basis. It is denied that the complainants have raised loan from other friends and they are put to mental torture and they have been deprived of alleged rights. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaints with exemplary costs. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence. The Senior Manager Customer Care of OP filed the affidavit evidence and produced documents. 5. Arguments on complainant site heard, OP side taken as heard. Point for consideration is “Whether the complaints filed in the present form are maintainable”? 6. We record our findings on the above point in the Negative. R E A S O N S 7. After perusing the complaints in all these cases the complaint averments are stereo type except the amounts mentioned. The complaint averments are vague and ambiguous. No specific pleading is available in the complaints to find out the deficiency in service on the part of the OP para – 3 of the complaints reads: “The object of the opposite party to provide a privileges and facilities who are the members of the opposite party. The opposite party utterly failed to provides facilities as per the guidelines of the opposite party. Hence, the subject matter of the dispute deficiency of service is made by the opposite party”. 8. After going through this para we are unable to make out as to what the complainants intend to allege against the OP. The complainants have not produced anything to show the guidelines of OP as alleged in this para. Without making proper grounds in the pleadings with regard to deficiency in service, the complaints cannot be entertained. The pleadings are ambiguous, vague and without any clarity. The complainants ought to have pleaded in detail the facilities and services assured by OP; while receiving the membership fee and further the details of the facilities and services not provided by OP, so as to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under these circumstances we are of the view that all these complaints with vague pleadings are not maintainable. However the complainants are at liberty to file fresh complaints in case if they are so advised with specific pleadings regarding deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Merely because the complaints filed against OP in other cases are allowed, holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, these complaints cannot be allowed on that basis. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints filed are dismissed as not maintainable. The complainants are at liberty to file complaints with specific pleadings if so advised with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Considering the nature of disputes no order as to costs. This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2970/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files. Send the copy of this order to 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 3rd day of September 2010.) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Snm: