THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1255/2012

Country Club (India) Ltd.,

No.273, Defence Colony,

HAL 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 038

Rep. by its Asst. Administrative Manager.

….Appellant/s.

(By Shri/Smt.Sreenidhi Law Chambers, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

Mr. K.L.Brahmendra Prasad

S/o K.V.LIngachary,

A/a 35 years, R/at No.52, 4^th Cross,

Ashwath Nagar, Marathhalli Post,

Near Ring Road Junction, Bangalore.

(By Shri/Smt.Suresh Babu, Adv.,)

……….. Respondent/s

:ORDERS:

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party against the order dated:15/06/2012 passed by the I Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bangalore in C.C.No.961/2012.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

          As per the offer of the Opposite Party that they are offering residential plot in a layout called “Coconut Grove”, if the complainant becomes a member of their club under “Mr. Cool Privilege Card Member” the complainant paid Rs.1,10,000/- on different dates i.e. from 27.12.2003 to 30.09.2010 to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party never gave the details of the site nor copies of the title deed, clearance certificate from the authorities.  The complainant contacted the Opposite Party several times in this regard, but did not deliver the site or its location.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Party on 02.02.2012 calling upon the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid by him along with interest.  But the Opposite Party has failed to reply.  Hence, the complaint.

3.       After receipt of notice by the District Commission, the Opposite Party appeared and filed the version contending that it has pioneered in making the clubs and resorts accessible to the common people, which hitherto was a forte of upper class and rich people, by offering the membership at affordable prices.  The Opposite Party has tie up with leading clubs and resorts across the country and several other countries.  It is further contended that the Opposite Party introduced a scheme viz. Mr. Cool BT Card Membes.  Accordingly, the complainant applied for a membership and paid Rs.1,10,000/-.  He was given membership card bearing No. COOL BT 289.   The claim of amount was paid by the member to the Opposite Party only for the purpose of membership with the Opposite Party.  The member has availed of various hospitality services provided by the Opposite Party and has no grievances in this regard.  It is further contended that the complainant is not disputing the services provided by the Opposite Party.  The complainant is no longer a member of Opposite Party club and he is therefore not entitled any relief in law or equity whatsoever.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       We have heard the arguments of both parties.

5.       Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the I Addl. District Commission, Bangalore, it is not in dispute that the complainant had paid Rs.1,10,000/- towards membership fee of “Mr. Cool Privilege Card Member”.  It is also not in dispute that the person who become members are entitled to following facilities:-

(i)         Country Club Cool Life Membership,

(ii)        Complementary Plot,

(iii)       Holiday Package of 2 nigh 3 days stay in Bangalore, Bush Betta,

(iv)       Holiday package to RGBC Goa for 6 night 7 days,

(v)        3 days 2 nights in Country Club De-Goa with one way

            Air Ticket of couple and even food and pick up and drop is taken care,

(vi)    Access to all the Clubs in India and other facilities. 

6.       When the appellant failed to provide such facilities, the respondent issued a legal notice dated:02.02.2012 and contacted the appellants several times for refund of his money.  But the appellant did not bother about it and not allowed the complimentary plot and also not provided other facilities.  Hence, the respondent approached the District Commission and the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- along with 12% interest and cost. 

7.       The appellant challenged the order of the District Commission on the ground that the respondent is no longer a member of appellant/club and hence is not entitled for any relief such as refund of membership fee paid by the respondent.

8.       Perused the order passed by the District Commission, the respondent has established the payment of Rs.1,10,000/- for the membership which is not disputed.   When the complainant paid the membership fee, it is the duty of the appellant to provide all facilities which the member is entitled as stated above.  But there is no material on record to show that the appellants were provided such facilities to the respondent and the respondent has utilized the hospitality services of the appellants. 

9.       It is mere contention of the appellant that the respondent is not disputing the services provided by them without any supportable documents.  Moreover, there is N number of cases pending before this Commission and already N numbers of cases were disposed of from this Commission, each and every cases in each the same contention was taken by the appellant, which shows appellant’s mala-fied intention to cheat the club members.  In view of the matter, since the Respondent has not willing to continue to be a member of appellant, the respondent is entitled to recover the amount paid by him towards membership fee with interest, which is just and proper, because the respondent has paid the membership fee and not availed any services from the appellant. 

10.     Hence, in our opinion, the I Addl. District Commission, Bangalore after having referred to the admitted facts arrived at the right conclusion and allowed the complaint.  Under such circumstances, no interference is required in the order passed by the I Addl. District Commission, Bangalore.  Hence, the appeal fails.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-  

:ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.   No costs.

The impugned order dated:15.06.2012 passed by I Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.961/2012 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.  

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss