Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

696/2009

T.S.Venkataraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Country Vacations Internatinal Holiday Club & Other - Opp.Party(s)

V.Shankar

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   29.07.2009

                                                                        Date of Order :   14.06.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.No.696/2009

TUESDAY THIS  14^th  DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

1.Mr. T.S.Venkataraman,

2.Mrs.S.Bala,

Both are residing at

No.45/69, Adarsh Apartments,

T/5, 3^rd Floor, 7^th Avenue,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai 600 083.                                                 ..Complainant

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

1. Royal International Holiday Club

India Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director,

Royal Goan Beach Club at Haathi Mahal,

Cavelossim,

Mobor,

Salcette, Goa-403 731.

 

2. Country Vacations,

(A Division of Country Club (India) Ltd.,),

Rep. by its Chairman & Director

Y.Rajeev Reddy,

No.12,3^rd Floor, “Vaibhav” Building,

Smith Road, Opp. Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                             ..Opposite parties   

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. V.Shankar & B.L.Lavanya      

For the opposite party-1           :   M/s. N.L.Rajah & another

For the opposite party-2           :   M/s. V.T.Narendiran & others.

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The  complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint to the complainant. 

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

 The complainants submit that they have entered into an agreement with the 2^nd opposite party who is the promoter of the 1^st opposite party dated 11.02.2005 for purchase of 110 points in the RCI Resorts for the period of 25 years, as per agreement and have become a membership bearing No.RCV4 / 4121 by paying a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- on 12.02.2005, as per the receipt dated 12.02.2005, according to the said purchase agreement and  member ship obtained by complainants, the complainants are entitled  for allocation to use each year number of points equivalent to the number of points that they own.  Subsequently to the agreement they found that they were unable to make full utility of the agreement benefits due to the 2^nd complainants health constraints coupled with their advanced age although they had been remitting the annual maintenance charges mentioned in the agreement without any demur which was initially fixed at Rs.4070/- per annum, according to the points.    In the above said circumstances when the 1^st opposite party instead of leaving them alone continued to call and both them about the various other schemes and further raised the annual maintenance charges from 4070/- to 6050/- they were constrained to consult the 1^st opposite party to release them from the 1^st membership /1^st agreement entered into.   The 1^st opposite party with a scheming mind stated that the complainants can exercise an option of entering into a fresh agreement, wherein their rights enumerated under the 1^st agreement would be transferred to the 2^nd opposite party who will scout for selling the membership through agents and thus the complainants would be able to get back the initial sum paid, however as a condition precedent they were directed to pay an additional sum of Rs.21,000/-.   Also stating that once they move to their new scheme / agreement with the 2^nd opposite party need not pay the huge annual charge of Rs.6050/- and instead will need to pay only Rs.3,000/-.    The complainants have  further  stated that on 30.11.2006, on the compulsion of the 2^nd opposite party  the complainants have entered agreement with the 2^nd opposite party on the promise made by the 2^nd opposite party staff that this agreement would enable them to bailout from the 1^st membership and also adjustment of the amount paid for the 1^st purchase agreement by paying additional sum of Rs.21,000/- to move the new scheme of the agreement for which the yearly maintenance would be lesser that is only Rs.3000/- per year.  Hence the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainants.  As such the complainants have sought for claiming to refund a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint to the complainant. 

Written Version of 1^st opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

2.     The 1^st opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.      The 1^st opposite party submit that the complainants entered into a purchase agreement dated 11.2.2005 with Country Vacations the opposite party-2 under which the complainants purchased 110 Royal Country Vacation International Holiday Club points.  All payments were made to the opposite party-2 only.  It is only after the sale is made that the opposite party-1 comes in the picture.   The complainants were entitled to holiday at the Royal Country Vacation International Holiday Club Resorts as per the terms  more particularly set out in the agreement.   As per agreement the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- has been received by country Vacation, the opposite party-2.      They were not aware of the non redressal of the inconveniences faced by the complainant and had promptly informed the complainant about the possible cancellation of the membership due to non payment of the Management charges.   The complainants have not informed the opposite party of the alleged deficiencies  in service which are not mentioned in his complaint.  

3.     The 1^st opposite party submits that by letter dated 27^th July 2006 they forwarded a vacation confirmation certificate to the complainants for their holiday from 19.8.2006 to 26.8.2006 in their Royal Palms Resort at Goa.   The complainants did holiday at Royal Palms Resort at Goa from 19^th August 2006 to 26^th August 2006.  As per the agreement, it is the obligation and duty of the members to pay the Management charges towards the upkeep and maintenance of the resorts.  The complainants paid the management charges of Rs.4070/- for the year 2005 and also paid the charges of Rs.5019/- for the year 2006 and thereafter stopped paying the management charges from 2007 onwards.      As  such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The claim made by the complainant in complaint are all baseless and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.     

Written Version of 2^nd  opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

4.    The 2^nd opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.        The 2^nd opposite party submit that the agreement for vacations between the complainants and the opposite parties were entered into in the year 2005 February itself and also the payment of Rs.1,28,000/- made in the same month and as such the complaint is beyond limitation as per consumer act and has to be dismissed.  The 2^nd opposite party further submit that the complainants and the opposite parties have entered into a written agreement and their rights and duties are clearly evident in the same and admittedly the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service with regard to the service rendered by the opposite party or violation of any conditions therein hence the complaint is not maintainable.   Therefore there is no deficiencies in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

5.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  Opposite parties filed and no document was marked on the side of the  opposite parties.   

6.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

 

1.    Whether the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite

                 parties alleged in the complaint by the complainants are true?

 

2.   Whether the  complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint against the opposite parties?  If so, to what extent?

 

 

7.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

             Perused the complaint filed by the complainants, the  written version filed by the  opposite parties 1 and 2 , proof affidavits filed by  the complainant  and the opposite parties  the documents Ex.A1 to A16 filed  on the side of complainants  and also considered the arguments of the both sides.

8.     Considering the both side case, there is no dispute that the complainants have entered into an agreement with the 2^nd opposite party who is the promoter of the 1^st opposite party dated 11.02.2005 for purchase of 110 points in the RCI Resorts for the period of 25 years, as per agreement Ex.A1 and have become a membership bearing No. RCV4/ 4121 by paying a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- on 12.02.2005, as per the receipt dated 12.02.2005, according to the said purchase agreement and  member ship obtained by complainants, the complainants are entitled  for allocation to use each year number of points  equivalent to the number of points that they own.  The points may be redeemed for accommodation at any of the Royal Group of Resorts, Global Alliance Resorts.  Further, as per the  clause 3 of the  terms and conditions of the said membership the members / complainants has to pay management charges for the year 2005 is Rs.37/- per point  rights owned.  The management charges calculated annually is payable to the promoter of the clerk must to be paid up to date each year before their points can be used. 

9.     However the complainants have alleged in the complaint that without going through the terms and conditions of the agreement they have signed the agreement without taking sufficient time for reflection on the reason out of the benefits or discuss the pros and cons with their family members and further alleged that due to their old age and on personal reason they were not able to utilize the allotment of the resorts for stay even a single occasion.  However the complainant were compelled to pay the annual maintenance charges of Rs.4070/- and Rs.6050/- for the years 2005 and 2006.  The complainants have  further  alleged that on 30.11.2006, on the compulsion of the 2^nd opposite party  the complainants have entered agreement  with the 2^nd opposite party on the promise made by the 2^nd opposite party staff that this agreement would enable them to bailout from the 1^st membership and also adjustment of the amount paid for the 1^st purchase agreement by paying additional sum of Rs.21,000/- to move the new scheme of the agreement for which the yearly maintenance would be lesser that is only Rs.3000/- per year.

10.    Whereas the 2^nd opposite party had denied the allegation made by the complainants  saying that the alleged payment paid by the complainants a sum of Rs.21,000/- is towards the installments payments due for the annual maintenance charges only and there is no any new scheme of agreement was entered between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party dated 30.11.2006.  In the said circumstances it is the burden on the complaint to prove the allegation that under the new scheme a new agreement for purchase dated 30.11.2006 was entered by them with this 2^nd opposite party.  But the complainants have not produced any such document of agreement dated 30.11.2006.  Further the receipt relied upon by the complainant towards alleged additional deposit of Rs.21,000/- is filed as  Ex.A5.  On perusal of the said Ex.A5 it is found that the said amount of Rs.21000/- is received as Inst. (Installment).   Therefore the said amount paid by the complainants may not be considered to be an additional payment for the entering another agreement dated 30.11.2006, is cannot be acceptable.   Though there is no proper explanation on the part of 2^nd opposite party for the said receipt of Rs.21,000/- on 31.11.2006 as installment  towards payment of annual maintenance cannot  appeared to be sustainable. 

11.    Further the complainant has claimed the said amount paid towards purchase of points in RCI and the amount paid towards the maintenance charges totaling to Rs.1,56,000/- as refund against the opposite parties saying that they were not able to make use of the allotment of the resorts due to their old age and personal reason, as such they don’t want to continue  to be the  members.

12.    Whereas the opposite parties have raised objections, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the said agreement is non cancelable and the amount paid for the said purchase is not refundable and the same has been entered into by the complainants voluntarily with full will and knowledge and hence they cannot be permitted to claim refund by making false case.  Hence the alleged claim for refund of is beyond the scope and purview of the agreement entered between the parties, such claim made by the complainant alleging the allegation of deficiency against the opposite parties, the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 

13.    On perusal of the contents of the agreement Ex.A1 and the particulars of the declaration attached with the agreement it is acceptable that the said agreement was entered between the parties, particular the complainants who are the parties to the agreement on their own free will and it is neither rescindable nor cancelable other than according to the clause 10 of the agreement i.e on default of dues.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the complainants having  fully aware  of the terms and conditions  and the contents thereon found in the agreement have entered with an agreement on their free will and also have paid payment for the  purchase amount and the subsequent payment of annual maintenance charges for the year 2005 to 2007  as such claiming refund of the amount on voluntary  cancellation of the membership  is not acceptable as per the agreement and the complainants are not entitled  for the same  as contended by the opposite parties is also acceptable. 

14.    However, considering the Ex.A1 a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- paid towards the purchase agreement as deposit by the complainants without any due as mentioned in the agreement, is not disputed by the 2^nd opposite party.  Even according to the agreement the annual maintenance liable to be paid by the complainants is Rs 37/- per point.  Even according to the 1^st opposite party written version is due to nonpayment of maintenance dues the membership of the complaints was cancelled in the month of December 2007.  If so, the complainants were liable to pay annual maintenance charges for the year 2005 – 2007 i.e for 3 years.  The complainants themselves have stated in their complaint that subsequent from   the year 2006   the annual maintenance charges was enhanced from Rs.4070/- to Rs.6050/-.  Therefore if calculated, the annual maintenance charges was to be paid by complainant would be a sum of Rs.4070/- + 6050/- + 6050/- = Rs.16,170/- .  Whereas as per Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5,  subsequent to the purchase agreement the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.28,000/-   Therefore the 2^nd opposite party have collected an excess amount of Rs.28,000/- – Rs.16,170/- = Rs.11,830/- towards annual maintenance charges, for which, there is no proper explanation on the side of the opposite parties.  Therefore the opposite parties are liable to refund the said amount of Rs.11830/- to the complainants is appears to be justifiable.  Contrary to this the complainants are not entitled for refund of Rs.1,59,000/- as claimed in the complaint. 

15.    It is also pertinent to mention that as on December 2007, as mentioned above the complainant has paid excess amount of annual maintenance charges to the opposite parties.  Therefore the contention raised by the opposite parties that the membership of the complainants was cancelled on December 2007 due to nonpayment of maintenance charges is not proper and not sustainable.  However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the complainants have got any grievance over the alleged  cancellation of membership by the opposite parties, the complainants are of liberty to take appropriate legal action before the Civil Court and work out their remedy.

16.    Therefore we are of the considered view as discussed above that the opposite parties are jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.11,830/- as the amount collected as excess towards annual maintenance with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e. 29.7.2009 to till the date of payment to the complainant.  Considering the facts and circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.  Accordingly the points 1 to 2 are answered.

        In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,830/- (Rupees Eleven thousand eight hundred and thirty only) as the amount collected as excess towards annual maintenance charges with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.  from the date of the complaint i.e. 29.7.2009 to till the date of payment to the complaint.  Considering the facts and circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.       

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  14^th   day  of  June   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 11.2.2005 - Copy of purchase agreement entered between the

                             complainants and the 1^st opposite party.

 

Ex.A2- 12.2.2005  - Copy of receipt for a sum of Rs.1,28,000/-

 

Ex.A3- 30.11.2006         - Copy of receipt for Rs.21,000/-.

Ex.A4- 4.1.2008    - Copy of statement of account of the 1^st complainant.

 

Ex.A5- 30.11.2008         - Copy of receipt for Rs.4,000/-.

 

Ex.A6- 23.5.2009  - Copy of purchase agreement entered between the

                             complainants and the 2^nd opposite party. 

 

Ex.A7- 1.6.2009    - Copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the

                             2^nd opposite party.

 

Ex.A8- 5.6.2009    - Copy of Ack. Card.

 

Ex.A9- 11.6.2009  - Copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the

                             2^nd opposite party.

 

Ex.A10- 11.6.2009         - Copy of Postal receipt for notice issued by the complainant.

 

Ex.A11- 6.7.2009  - Copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties.

 

Ex.A12- 7.7.2009  - Copy of Ack. Card.

 

Ex.A13- 13.6.2008 - Copy of cancelled onward and return tickets to and fro

            19.6.2008 - Goa by train.

 

Ex.A14- 28.5.2001         - Copy of AMC Bill received by the complainants from

                             2^nd opposite party.

 

Ex.A15- 9.3.2012  -  Copy of AMC bill received by the complainants from

                              2^nd opposite party.

 

Ex.A16- 17.3.2012         - Copy of AMC bill received by the complainants from

                             2^nd opposite party.

 

 

                

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-   .. Nil ..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.