BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 852 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.157 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I  HYDERABAD

 Between

Dr.N.Dinesh S/o N.Narsimulu

aged about 32 years, Occ: Doctor

R/o BTR Colony, Sakeeth Main Road

Kapra, Hyderabad

Appellant/complainant

          A N D

M/s Country Vacations

C/o Country Club (India) Ltd.,

rep. By its Manager,

Off: at 5-9-16, Opp. To Secretariat

Saifabad, Hyderabad-500063

                                                                   Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                  Sri B.Sudershan Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent              Sri S.Rajesh Jaiswal

QUORUM             :

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER

 MONDAY THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          This is an appeal filed by the complainant dissatisfied with the orders of the  District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad   dated 19.07.2013 made in CC No.157 of 2012 in dismissing the complaint. 

2.                For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

 3.               The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on being invited by the opposite party to have a membership in the country club the complainant visited the opposite party and the opposite party disclosed the benefits of the membership and offered the membership on payment of Rs.75,000/- which includes a membership card to use the same all over India and further offered to allot a complementary plot of 150 sq.yds.  Convinced with the offer the complainant paid part of  amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash on 31.07.2011 towards the membership.    The complainant informed the opposite party he was ready with the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- if the opposite party execute the registered sale deed in his favour and issue membership certificate but the opposite party postponed the same on one pretext or the other.  Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party the complainant demanded the opposite party to refund the amount paid by him but the opposite party refused to pay the same.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 10.02.2012 to the opposite party and filed the complaint praying to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.25,000/- with compensation and costs.    

4.                The opposite party resisted the case contending that the complainant had taken Master Life Membership and out of RS.90,000/- the complainant had paid only Rs.25,000/- and failed to pay the balance amount.  The membership fees is non-refundable and without paying the total membership fee the complainant is not entitled for the complementary plot.  Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant    filed his evidence affidavit and the document Ex.A1 which is the copy of receipt of RS.25,000/- while on behalf of the Opposite party, the Customer Relations Manager filed his evidence affidavit and filed Copy of application form which is marked as Ex.B1. 

6.               The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed  the complaint bearing CC No.157 of 2012 by orders dated 19.07.2013. 

7.      Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant  preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    The District Forum failed to consider that the   opposite party has not given any reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant and the opposite party had taken the signatures on some printed papers with certain blanks in order to complete the same by the time of executing the document of membership and sale deed in respect of complementary plot on payment of balance amount ofRs.50,000/-.    Hence, the opposite party prayed to allow the appeal.

8.                The counsel for the   Opposite party and the complainant   had advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version.    Heard both sides.

9.                The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

10.                        The Counsel for the  complainant  submitted that the membership fees was to the tune of Rs.75,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.25,000/-, and the complainant is ready to pay the balance amount if the opposite party executed the registered sale deed in respect of the complementary plot and issue of membership certificate.    He further submitted that, the complainant has requested several times for the execution of registered sale deed and membership certificate and when the opposite party failed to do so the complainant requested for refund of the amount, deposited by him.  On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party would contend that since the membership fees was non-refundable, as per the application form   , Ex.B1 submitted by the complainant, the Opposite Parties refused to refund the same. He further submitted that the parties were bound by the recitals  of the said application.

11.                        After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be allowed,  for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the complainant became the member of the Opposite party, and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as membership fees, assuring that the amount of Rs.50,000/-, towards the same (membership fees), shall be paid if the opposite party execute and register the sale deed and issue of membership certificate. Since, the complainant did not want to continue with the membership of the Opposite party,  of him becoming member, he sent a request for the refund of an amount of Rs.25,000/-deposited by her, as membership fees, vide   receipt Ex.A1.  In our considered opinion, when the complainant did not want to avail of the services of the Opposite party when the opposite party not willing to register the sale deed and issue of membership certificate   by no stretch of imagination, a sum of Rs.25,000/-, paid by him, as membership fees, could be retained by them (Opposite Parties). By refusing to refund the amount aforesaid, the Opposite party was certainly deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum was not right in dismissing the complaint.    In the circumstances discussed supra, we answer the point framed for consideration in paragraph No.9, supra, in favour of the complainant/appellant and against the opposite party/respondent. 

12.                        In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is allowed.  

         In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to refund Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. 

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER

         Dated:  02.06.2017