Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/79/2007

Mr.R.Rajamani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chennai Corporate Club - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Anuradha Balaji

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   18.11.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   01.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

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

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

C.C.NO.79/2007

TUESDAY THIS  1^ST    DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Mr. R. Rajamani,

Plot No.12, Door No.G-2,

Kaveri Flats,

Civil Aviation Colony,

Nanganallur, Chennai 600 061.                 .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  The Chennai Corporate Club,

Holidays of Chennai Corporate Club Pvt. Ltd.,

Ramaniyam Avenue,

E-28, Second Avenue,

3^rd Floor, Besant Nagar,

Chennai 600 090.

 

2. The Hotel Supreme,

No.110, West Perumal Maistry Street,

Madurai 625 001.                                        .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. Anuradha Balaji & another  

Counsel for opposite party-1    :   M/s. Lakhsmana Shankar

Counsel for opposite party-2   :   M/s. S.Dharmakkan & D.Vijay

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum Rs.1237.50 being the amount incurred by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the medical expenses and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and to pay cost of the complaint.  

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that on Wide publicity in leading newspapers and media the complainant became a member of the 1^st opposite party club on 7.1.2006 and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards onetime fee and it is for  five years.   The 1^st opposite party is liable to provide the complainant stay at the opposite party’s own / affiliated clubs/resorts/hotels subject to availability.     The complainant further contended that believing the above said representations and the facilities agreed to be provided by the 1^st opposite party informed to the 1^st opposite party stating that he is opting  holidays from 11.5.2006 to 13.5.2006 at Madurai in the 2^nd opposite party hotel Supreme.    Immediately the 1^st opposite party  sent a letter dated 29.4.2006 to the 2^nd opposite party to make suitable arrangement for the stay of the complainant from 11.5.2006 to 13.5.2006.   The complainant further state that he reached Madurai on 11.5.2006 believing that all his accommodation has been arranged by the 1^st opposite party at the 2^nd opposite party hotel.  But to his shock and dismay the complainant learnt that no such reservation was made in his name as promised by the 1^st opposite party at the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant was compelled to make his own arrangements.   The complainant state that he is being a heart patient; owing to mental stress caused by the 1^st opposite party’s deficient service he was immediately referred to a hospital at Madurai where he underwent an Angiyogram incurring an expense of nearly Rs.20,000/-.  Accordingly the complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.7.2006 to the 1^st opposite party demanding to refund the expenses incurred by him at the 2^nd opposite party hotel.    But the opposite party has failed to comply with the lawful demands of the complainant.       As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 1^st opposite party  are as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party state that the opposite parties deny all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and this opposite party puts the complainant to strict proof of each and every allegation.    The 1^st opposite party submit that  the complainant did not pay the maintenance charges or utility charges as required. The complainant was provided with air-conditioner accommodation at the rate available to the members of 1^st opposite party.    The 1^st opposite party deny the averments of the complaint as self serving and motivated.   The complainant’s health detoriated and he underwent Angiogram at a costs of Rs.20,000/- due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is imaginary.    Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.  The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 2nd opposite party  are as follows:

        The 2^nd opposite party denies the averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 2^nd opposite party submit that at the out set the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The 2^nd opposite party submit that the 1^st opposite party has not informed the 2^nd opposite party to book the room for the complainant from 11.5.2006 to 13.5.2006 in the2nd opposite party’s Hotel.   The 2^nd opposite party enclose the copy of the booking register for 11.5.2006.   The 2^nd opposite party has provided the A/c Deluxe room for the complainant and the complainant has paid Rs.1237.50 for the accommodation.   The 2^nd opposite party also submit that during the stay of the complainant in the 2^nd opposite party’s hotel have provided all the facility and there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 document marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

 

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1237.50 towards the expenditure incurred for accommodation and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses as prayed for?

 

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/-

        towards mental agony with cost  as prayed for ?

6.  POINTS 1 & 2 :-

 

        The opposite parties 1 & 2 have not turned up to advance any oral arguments for long time.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed their respective written arguments.  The  learned counsel for the complainant contended that after seeing the Wide publicity in leading newspapers and media the complainant became a member of the 1^st opposite party club on 7.1.2006 and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards one time fee as per  Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 and it is for  five years.   As per Ex.A2  terms and conditions the complainant is entitled to Clause-9 is as follows:

“ I can enjoy my holiday any time of the year at the company’ own/affiliated clubs/resorts/hotels subject to availability. “

Hence the complainant informed to the 1^st opposite party stating that he is opting  holidays from 115.2006 to 13.5.2006 at Madurai in the 2^nd opposite party hotel Supreme.    Immediately the 1^st opposite party  sent a letter Ex.A3 to the 2^nd opposite party to make suitable arrangement for the stay of the complainant from 11.5.2006 to 13.5.2006.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that with a fond hope of enjoying the holidays the complainant went to the 2^nd opposite party hotel supreme where he was informed that no such information received from 1^st opposite party and his facilities as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 was negative.   However the 2^nd opposite party provided A/c room for suitable accommodation of the complainant.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1237/- also proves the deficiency of service of the 1^st opposite party which caused mental agony by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant was put to great hardship resulting that the complainant was admitted in hospital and underwent Angiogram.  But on a careful perusal of the entire records there is no medical records which reveals to say that the Angiogram was administered only due to mental agony caused by the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A3 is the medical bill dated 24.5.2006 which has no relevancy in this case.    Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that after obtaining the one time fee of Rs.15,000/- by the 1^st opposite party deliberately neglected to provide suitable resorts as agreed in the terms and conditions.   The complainant is to claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony but the complainant has not established the question of mental agony in such manner known to law.

7.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant without understanding the privilege available to the members of club and without paying the maintenance charges and utility charges he preferred to have a stay at Madurai in 2^nd opposite party hotel supreme.    Immediately after the receipt of information, the 1^st opposite party sent letter for suitable accommodation in the 2^nd opposite party hotel.   The 2^nd opposite party hotel also provided Delux A/c room and collected its own charges of Rs.1237.50.  There is no deficiency of service committed by the 1^st opposite party.   But on a careful perusal of the records as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 there is nothing about the maintenance charges and utility charges for availing membership in the 1^st opposite party for five years.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the claim of medical expense of Rs.20,000/- by way of  Ex.A3 bill, dated 29.4.2006 has no connection with  the membership of the 1^st opposite party.  Equally the claim of mental agony is imaginary and unsustainable.    

8.     The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party would contend that the 2^nd opposite party has no connection with the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party has  not informed the 2^nd opposite party to book any room for the complainant from 11.5.2006 to 13.5.2006.  As per Ex.B1 it is very clear that no room booked for the complainant.   Immediately  after arrival of the complainant on 11.5.2006 the 2^nd opposite party provided A/c Deluxe room and collected a sum of Rs.1237.50 towards accommodation.   There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice never arise against the 2^nd opposite party.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this forum is of the considered view that even after the receipt of one time fee, the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency of service to the complainant.   Hence the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1238/-  towards the cost of accommodation and  compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1238/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred and thirty eight only) towards the cost of accommodation and  compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.  No order as against the 2^nd  opposite party.   

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  1^st  day  of  August 2017. 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 7.1.2006    - Copy of receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2- 29.4.2006  - Copy of letter sent by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Bills issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A4- 12.7.2006  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A5- 13.7.2006  - Copy of reply letter sent by the 1^st opposite party

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -  

Ex.B1- 11.5.2006  - Copy of Advance booking Register

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.