Date of Filing: 15.10.2009 Date of Order: 31.03.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2403 OF 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> B.N. Ravikanth Raj Urs<br /> No. 169, 1st floor, ‘Shubham’<br /> 7th B Main Road, Hampi Nagar<br /> Vijaya Nagar, Bengaluru 560040 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Chairman & Managing Director<br /> Country Club (India) Ltd.<br /> # 273, 1st Main, Defence Colony<br /> HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar<br /> Bangalore 560 038 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2406 OF 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> J. Vasudevaraju<br /> S/o. P. Janaradhanaraju<br /> R/at “Sapthgiri”, No. 93, 10th Cross<br /> 2nd Main, 3rd Block, Thyagarajanagar<br /> Bangalore 560 028 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Country Club (India) Ltd.<br /> # 675, 9th ‘A’ Main<br /> Indiranagar 1st Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 038<br /> Represented by its Authorised<br /> Person / Signatory Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> These two complaints are clubbed together for passing common orders since the opposite party in both the cases is one and the same and question of facts and law involved in both the cases are one and the same. <br /> The respective complainants have filed complaint seeking relief of refund of the amount paid by them towards membership fee of the opposite party club with interest and compensation. The complainant in complaint No. 2403/2009, Mr. Ravikanth Raj Urs submitted that he has paid in all Rs. 1,99,000/- to the opposite party for Mr. Super Cool Membership scheme. Opposite party had issued Mr. Super Cool Privilege laminated card. Thereafter opposite party remained silent and did not keep up promise for allotment of land and other facilities as per the assurance / representation made at the time of becoming member of the club. Complainant made several calls. Opposite party did not respond properly. Opposite party did not furnish basic information regarding scheme, location of properties, layout approval and survey No. etc. Complainant decided to cancel membership of club and wrote letter to refund the amount of Rs. 1,99,000/-. Letter was received by the opposite party and there was no response. Hence, the complaint.<br /> The complainant in complaint No. 2406/2009 Mr. Vasudevaraju submitted that during first week of March 2009 a person from opposite party organization contacted him over mobile and convinced about the scheme introduced by opposite party and requested him to avail membership in the opposite party club. Complainant believed the announcement and furnished is office address. Marketing executive of opposite party personally visited the office of complainant. Complainant made payment trough Axis, SBI and HDFC cards. He was promised two plots measuring 2400 sq.ft. The complainant has not received any proper response from the opposite party went to police and lodged complaint against opposite party in the month of September 2009. Complainant visited office of opposite party requesting him to cancel his membership and refund the amount collected by them. Opposite party has not correctly responded to the e-mail correspondence of the complainant. The opposite party never rendered any service to the complainant. The complainant applied for cancellation of membership and refund of amount paid by him for deficient act of the opposite party. Opposite party failed and neglected in providing proper service to the complainant. Legal notice of complainant has not been answered by opposite party. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to refund entire amount collected by them i.e. Rs. 1,45,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed version in both the cases stating that complaint is false, it is time barred. The complainants have utilised services provided by opposite party. The grievance of the complainant being allotment of complementary site could be enforced directing the opposite party to register the same. Order of refund would be contrary to the Consumer Protection Act. Same would amount to recovery proceedings rather than enforcement of rights mutually agreed between the parties. The place of allotment of complementary site has been informed by the opposite party to all the members. Membership fee is non-refundable. Complainant failed to show deficiency of service. Opposite party is well known organization. It has denied that complainant suffered mental agony and hardship. For all these reasons opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the respective complainants are entitled for refund of amount?<br /> 5. I have gone through the pleadings of parties and documents.<br /> 6. As regards payments made by the respective complainants there is no dispute. The opposite party never denied the payments made by the complainants towards membership fee. Therefore, the payment aspect shall have to be accepted as true and correct. The second question to be considered is whether the opposite party has complied with the promise and commitment made to the complainants in respect of allotment of complementary sites. It is again admitted case of the parties that the opposite party had promised to the complainants on becoming members of the club they will allot complementary plot. This commitment made by the opposite party has remained commitment only. As per the assurance and representation made by the opposite party representatives so far no complementary sites have been allotted and registered in favour of the complainants. The respective complainants requested the opposite party for registration of plot in their name as per the assurance and commitment. But the opposite party has not taken any steps to register the plot and hand over the possession of the allotted plot so far. Therefore, the complainants having not satisfied with their attitude requested the opposite party for cancellation of membership and to refund the amount paid by them. The learned advocate for the opposite party submitted that even now the opposite party is ready to register the complementary plots in favour of respective complainants. Therefore, there is no question of deficiency on their part. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, complaints are not maintainable. It is true that the opposite party has come forward to allot and register plots to the complainants but mere assertion or submission by the opposite party that plots will be allotted cannot be believed or accepted. The complainants submitted that they have lost faith in the opposite party and therefore, they do not want any plots instead the opposite party be directed to refund the amount there by they will be satisfied with that relief only. Admittedly, the opposite party has not produced any proof or evidence or documents to show that layout had been formed after obtaining clearance from the Government and other authorities and the plots are ready for allotment and the layout had been developed. The opposite party has not come forward in which village layout had been formed. In the absence of any proof or details of layout mere submission of the opposite party that even now it is ready to allot plots has no merit at all. Such kind of assertion or submission cannot be accepted. So in view of these facts the prayer of the complainants for refund of the amount shall have to be considered. The complainants have requested for cancellation of membership and refund of the amount. There is absolutely no wrong on the part of complainant to seek refund of the amount paid by them. It is just, fair and reasonable on the part of the opposite party to refund the amount to respective complainants. If the refund is ordered no injustice or prejudice will cause to opposite party because the opposite party will be refunding the amount received from the respective complainants. As regards interest is concerned the opposite party having utilised the amount of the respective complainants it is bound to pay interest on the refund amount. Under the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just, fair and reasonable to grant interest at 9% p.a. from the date of last payment till realisation. As regards the prayer of complainant for grant of compensation for mental agony etc. this prayer cannot be allowed. There is no question of granting compensation. This being a case of refund with interest that will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the request of the complainants for awarding compensation cannot be considered and there is no merit or substance in request for granting of compensation. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. Both the complaints are allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1,99,000/- to the complainant Mr. B.N. Ravikanth Raj Urs in complaint No. 2403/2009 along with 9% interest p.a. from 03.04.2007 (last date of payment) till payment / realization.<br /> 8. The opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount collected from the complainant Mr. Vasudevaraju in complaint No. 2406/2009 along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment / realisation.<br /> 9. The respective complainants are also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- each as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. <br /> 10. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 11. Keep the copy of the order in connected case file. <br /> 12. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 13. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />