BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
(ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 228/2018
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Aged about 43 years, S/o Mr. Satyanarayana Setty, R/at No.66, “Ammanna Madilu”, Gadi Mudanna Road, Sree Ramanagar, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore 560 079. (In person) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | M/s The Country Club, B-2-293/82/F/A/A21 & C21, Plot No.A21, C21, Co-operative Society Ltd., RD, No.9, Film Nagar Hyderabad 500 033, Andhra Pradesh. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Mr. Rajeev Reddy Yedaguri, Managing Director, M/s The Country Club, B-2-293/82/F/A/A21 & C21, Plot No.A21, C21, Co-operative Society Ltd., RD, No.9, Film Nagar Hyderabad 500 033, Andhra Pradesh. | |
3. | M/s The Country Club, No.273, 1st Main, Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038, Reptd. by its Branch. (By M/s Srinidhi Law Chambers) | |
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.21.12.2017 passed in CC.No.1624/2015 on the file of 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that enticing by the advertisement given by the Opposite Party, the complainant become a member and paid initial amount of Rs.25,000/- on 26.06.2006. Further, he agreed to pay the balance amount in installments. The Opposite Party confirmed to allot plot No.189 in Phase-2 at Tumkur upon getting the full membership amount. Accordingly, the complainant has paid Rs.90,000/- to the Opposite Party in installments. It is also the case of the complainant that the Opposite Party confirmed to allot the plot by way of gift. In this context the complainant also paid the registration fees of Rs.15,000/- on 29.05.2009 which has been duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party, but, the Opposite Party did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.
3. In the year 2010, the Opposite Party executed the gift deed in the name of the complainant in the Sub-Registrar Office at Sira. On verification, the complainant came to know that he was given different plot and the one which have confirmed earlier a plot which is about 30 kms away from Tumkur project which is far away from the city. In this regard, the complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party to cancel his membership and refund the amount along with interest on the ground that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint.
4. After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed version except admitting the membership and also the allotment of site by way of gift, they denied the remaining allegations made by the complainant. The Opposite Party further contended that they have already executed a gift deed in favour of the complainant. When such being the fact, the question of refund of the amount does not arise as there is no privity of contract between the parties with regard to the refund of the membership. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments of appellant. Inspite of sufficient time provided to the respondents, they have not argued the matter.
6. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondents offered membership to their club to the appellant and fixed fees of Rs.1,15,000/- and the appellant became a member and paid initial amount of Rs.25,000/- on 26.06.2006 and further balance amount was paid in installments. The allegation of the appellant is that the respondents have confirmed to the appellant that they will allot the plot No.189 in Phase-2 at Tumkur. Hence, the appellant paid registration fees of Rs.15,000/- on 29.05.2009 which is also an admitted fact, but, the respondents did not executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant inspite of several requests. The allegation of the appellant is that in the year 2010, the respondents have executed a Gift Deed in the name of the appellant in the Sub Registrar Office at Sira, but, the site allotted by the respondents was in remote place which is about 30 kms away from Tumkur project. Hence, the appellant issued a letter dt.12.03.2013 and requested the respondents to cancel the membership and to refund the amount along with interest.
7. On perusal of the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the District Commission has referred the citation produced by the respondents in Appeal No.3898/2010 dt.26.09.2011 wherein the similar facts are there and held that the plot allotted by the respondents as a Gift as per the scheme and the appellant has also not paid the arrears of the membership fees. The appellant has made payment for membership of the club not for the complimentary plot and dismissed the same.
8. Perused the documents produced by the respondents in lower court. The Gift Deed in favour of the appellant we noticed that the respondents have already executed the Gift Deed on 29.05.2010 in favour of the appellant and the same was registered as document No.SRA-1-00787/2010-11 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sira which is admitted by the appellant also. Moreover, the appellant has paid the membership fee of the club for availing the facilities of the club and not for the plot and it is a complimentary plot. The Gift Deed was executed in the year 2010 in favour of the appellant and after three years, the appellant has issued a letter and requested the respondents to cancel the membership and returned the amount. If the appellant was not satisfied with the complimentary plot, he can refused the plot at the time of Gift Deed itself. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made herein, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
