Date of Filing:16.09.2008 Date of Order:27.11.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2031 OF 2008 B. Chandrashekaraiah No. 240, 2nd Floor, 7th Main RPC Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore 560 040 Complainant V/S Country Club (India) Limited # 675, 9th A Main Indiranagar 1st Stage Bangalore 560 038 Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant for refund of Rs. 1,45,000/-. The facts of the case are that opposite party company is a registered public limited company and runs the club by way of mobilizing members. Opposite party company offered complimentary residential sites to the members. Complainant submitted application for Kool club membership. The company issued allotment letter for one plot and failed to register the same in time schedule even after collecting registration fee from the complainant. The opposite party collected deposits vide receipt dated 26.12.2007 Rs. 50,000/-and vide receipt dated 17.12.2007 Rs. 75,000/-, Registration fee and stamp duty vide receipt No. 000174 Rs. 20,000/-. In this way total amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- was collected. The company has assured that site will be handed over by way of registered deed within 90 days from the date of membership. It has already 8 months is over from the date of membership to the club and 5 months are over from the date of deposit of registration fee and stamp duty. The company defaulted in handing over the complimentary site. The company defaulted to issue allotment letter. The company has defaulted in its commitments. Complainant has sought deposited money back from the opposite party. The company has not co-operated in this matter. Complainant has sent refund request by speed post, e-mail and fax message. Company has failed either to reply or refund the money. Therefore, the complainant has requested that opposite party be directed to pay back the amount with cost. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite party put in appearance through advocate. Defence version filed admitting that the opposite party has received Rs. 1,45,000/- from the complainant towards Kool Club Membership. As per the scheme every member gets a complimentary free site. Opposite party is ready to allot site to the complainant. Due the stoppage of conversion of lands by the Government opposite party could not allot the site. There is no deficiency in service. Therefore, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. Arguments are heard. 4. The point for consideration is: Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount? 5. The complainant has produced receipt dated 17.12.2007. In this receipt he has paid Rs. 75,000/- to opposite party and another receipt dated 26.12.2007. This is for Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant has paid in all Rs. 1,25,000/- to the opposite party under Mr. Kool Card Life Membership fee. This payment is admitted by the opposite party. There is no dispute or whatsoever in respect of the payment made by the complainant. The complainant has produced another receipt for Rs. 20,000/-. This amount is towards Stamp duty and registration expenses for the complimentary plot. Therefore, the total payment made by the complainant comes to Rs. 1,45,000/-. The complainant states that the opposite party has committed default in its commitment in not allotting and registering the complimentary plot as promised within 90 days from the date of membership. Admittedly, the opposite party has not executed sale deed of complimentary site as per the commitment. The opposite party has not come forward with defence that the sites have been formed and ready for distribution. The opposite party has not specified in the defence version whether the layout has been approved and plots have been formed or not. Therefore, it is clear that the opposite party has no specific defence to make. The opposite party has submitted very vague and bald defence version. Such kind of defence version will not help the opposite party in any manner. The defence version has not been signed by the opposite party or its authorized signatory. Defence version has been signed only by the advocate for the opposite party. This kind of defence version is not at all a defence version in the eye of law. Therefore, it is clear that whatever the case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged and shall have to be accepted as true and correct. Therefore, by the facts stated by the complainant it can safely be held that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, he is entitled for refund of the amount. The request of the complainant is fair, just and proper. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to safe guard the better interests of the consumers. The complainant is definitely a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. His interests shall have to be protected. The complainant has prayed for refund of the amount with interest and costs. The prayer of the complainant deserves to be accepted. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 6. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,45,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. 7. The complainant is also entitled for interest at 12% p.a. on the above amount from the date of respective payments. 8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
