Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/107/2022

Shakuntla Khatri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The City Club, Hyde Park Estate - Opp.Party(s)

Jagjit Singh Chatrath

11 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/107/2022
Date of Institution	:	20.1.2022
Date of Decision	:	11/12/2023

 

Shakuntla Khatri W/o Shriram Khatri r/o #61, Swastik Vihar Phase-2 MDC 5 Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The City Club, Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh, Distt. Mohali (Punjab).
2. DLF Universal Limited SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.     

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate for complainant.
	:	OP No.1 exparte.
	:	Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased a residential floor  No. HPE-IF-R1-E506-FF, in the project of the OPs. The complainant besides paying sale consideration amount also 50% amount of Rs.75,000/- for club membership  alongwith  club security deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 20.4.2016. On 9.1.2017 the complainant moved an application with OP No.2 for withdrawal of club membership as they being aged mostly reside with their children  who live in abroad and even no membership card was issued to the complainant.   But the OP no.2 informed that  club membership is mandatory and vide email dated 2.1.2019 demanded remaining 50%  membership fee alongwith annual club membership charges. The complainant numerous times enquired from the OPs regarding the status of his application for withdrawal of membership but to no avail.  The OP No.1 on 30.9.2021 sent an email demanding outstanding due club charges to the tune of Rs.1,09,740/- against 5 years membership annual charges and security deposit on or before 15.10.2021 failing which interest @10% p.a. will be charged from the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. OP No.1 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 13.09.2022 it was proceeded against exparte.
3. The OP No.2 in its written statement stated that the complainant is a chronic litigant and has filed various cases against the answering OP in different courts. It is averred that the complainant was duly informed about the payment towards the club facility in clause 1.6 of the Buyer’s agreement. As per clause 1.6 of the executed Buyer’s Agreement complainant is duly informed that he has to pay in addition to total price, mandatory amounts towards the club facility constructed by the OPs for the benefit of the members and the complainant only paid Rs.20,000/- and Rs.75,000/- i.e. 50% of the membership fees at the time of taking the possession on 26.2.2017 and the rest of the amount was to be made when the club is made operational but the complainant did not pay remaining 50% amount and Rs.6000/- as annual charges since the club is already in operation. It is alleged that despite repeated requests through demand letters the complainant did not pay the remaining amount. It is averred that the club membership card and club agreements alongwith rules and regulation signed by the complainant can only be issued to the legitimate members who has fully paid the membership fees but in the instant case the complainant has not paid the balance membership fee and annual charges. Denying any deficiency on its part it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. Through the present complaint the complainant has made prayer for giving directions to the OPs for withdrawal of the club membership.
8. It is an admitted fact that the complainant  had taken possession of the unit in question in the year 2017 and investment qua the subject unit was made in the year 2012 and independent floor buyer’s agreement Annexure OP-1 was executed between the parties on 11.11.2013. Relevant clause 1.6 of the independent floor buyer’s agreement  is reproduced as under:-

“1.6 In addition to the Total Price and other charges mentioned in the Application/Agreement, the Applicant shall pay  amounts towards the club facility to be provided in Said Project, such as:

 

     a. Membership Fees : Rs. 1,50,000/- for 5                                   years

     b. Annual Club

          Charges         : Rs. 6,000/- p.a.

     c. Refundable Security

          Deposit            : Rs. 20,000/-

 The above amounts shall be paid by the Applicant as and when demanded by the Company/agency. The Applicant understands that the above charges are subject to revision at the sole discretion of the Company or the agency managing the club and the Applicant undertakes to abide by the same. In addition to the above, the Applicant shall be liable to pay usage charges in accordance with the usages and services availed by the Allottee and the Allottee shall be required to sign and execute necessary documents for the membership of the club which shall contain the detailed terms and conditions of membership of the club and the Applicant shall be bound by the same.”

 

9. The aforesaid agreement is duly signed by the complainant on 11.11.2013 and the possession was taken on 16.2.2017 and the club in question became functional on 1.1.2019  and out of the total membership fee of Rs.1,50,000/- the complainant had paid partial amount of Rs.75,000/- on 26.2.2017 and after elapse of almost 5 years the complainant has filed the instant complaint in January 2022 with a request for issuing directions to the Ops to withdraw the club membership  and refund of the partial amount paid by him to the OP.
10. From the above discussion we are of the opinion that independent floor buyer’s agreement was entered into between the parties  on 11.11.2013 and as per settled law both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the same being duly signed by them.
11.   Admittedly, the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 1.1.2019 when the club has become functional and the complainant was bound to pay the remaining 50% amount of the membership fees which was demanded by the Ops from the complainant.  Since the complainant was not interested to retain the said membership therefore, he declined to pay the same and he approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance. As per clause 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the limitation for filing complaint is 2 years from the date of cause of action.  In the instant case the period of limitation has expired on 1.1.2021 but the complainant filed the complaint before this Commission on 20.1.2022 i.e. after more than one and half year from the date of accrual of cause of action on 1.1.2019 when the balance membership fee became due towards the complainant, which is beyond the limitation period. Hence, the complaint being barred by limitation is  not maintainable particularly when, the complainant has himself admitted in para 1 of the complaint that a complaint with regard to the same unit is pending in the Hon’ble National Commission regarding delay in possession and other related issues. Thus, the complainant ought to have raised the said issue in one and the same litigation rather than filing multiple cases for the same unit. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being barred by limitation is dismissed.  
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
11/12/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member