BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 300/2006 Filed on 08/11/2006 Dated: 27..02..2010 Complainant: Unnikrishnan, Rema, B4, Sub Registrar Lane, Sasthamangalam – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)
Opposite parties:
The Company Secretary, M/s. Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club (Division of Country Club India) Amrutha Castle No.5-9-06 Ltd.), Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 063. Royal Country, M/s. Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club 723/A, Prathmesh Complex off Veera Desai Road, Extn. Oshiwara, Andheri (w) Mumbai – 400 053.
Addl. 3rd opp. party
The Country Club (India) Ltd., 1st Floor, Mathew Arcade, opp. Chaithanya Eye Hospital, Kesavadasapuram Jn., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
This O.P having been heard on 15..12..2009, the Forum on 27..02..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations by the complainant against the opposite parties are the following:- While the complainant, who is a Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank, was working in Mumbai, the executive of the 1st opposite party approached the complainant and lured him to join their holiday club scheme. The complainant paid Rs.1,10,000/- towards full payment of this scheme and No.RCV 8/8107 was assigned to him. On 16/2/2005 an agreement was executed with respect to the transaction. The period of the said agreement was for 25 years from the date of its execution. The complainant was offered holiday homes in India and also abroad. Eventhough the opposite parties promised to issue purchase certificate they failed to do so. The complainant learned that the offers in the agreement are not fully functional and hence the opposite party tried to evade the enquiry of the complainant regarding the project. Opposite parties to the utter surprise of the complainant sent a new agreement with some new covenants and omitted some terms, beneficient to the complaint which existed in the original agreement, to the present resident address of the complainant. The complainant send letter on 12/7/2005 resending the said new agreement. But the opposite parties are adopting a negligent attitude towards the complainant causing severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The above said actions of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence complainant send an advocate notice on 10/8/2006 to the opposite parties directing him to refund an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest. But there is no response from the oppposite party. Hence this complaint is necessitated. 2. Opposite parties remain ex-parte.
3. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The purchase agreement, Ext. P1, reveals that the complainant has made an agreement with the opposite parties in April 2005. From the payment terms in the said agreement it has been stated that balance due date Rupees as 'Nil'. Further the total purchase price has been mentioned as Rs. 1,10,000/- and RCI, fee for 1st two years as 'paid' and balance due as 'Nil'. As per Ext. P5, the opposite parties have issued a temporary receipt dated 16/4/2005 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Ext. P7 dated 19/4/2005 is the receipt for Rs.40,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. In Ext. P5 it has been printed that this acknowledgment will be confirmed by a Pucca receipt. Anyhow, the complainant has not produced any Pucca receipt. But from Ext. P6, the credit card statement dated 18/4/2005 it could be seen that an amount of Rs.70,000/- has been paid to Country Club India, Bombay. Thus payment of Rs. 70,000/- to the opposite parties stands proved by Ext. P6. Besides this the acceptance of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant by the opposite parties is proved by Ext. P7. From the above documents complainant has successfully established that an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- has been accepted by the opposite parties from the complainant.
6. Complainant has alleged that the opposite parties have sent a new unilateral agreement with some new covenants and omitting some terms beneficient to the complaint which existed in the original agreement. The letter sent by the Manager, Customer Care of the opposite parties which has been marked as Ext. P2 evidences the same wherein it has been stated that 'earlier membership which you were enrolled at Country vacations was for 25 years with 2 years, complimentary RCI membership. The new agreement is having some good features such as its for 30 years, with 5 years complimentary RCI membership'. As per Ext. P2 the complainant has been asked to sign the document and send the same. According to the complainant, the said agreement did not contain some terms beneficient to the complainant, which were already there in the previous agreement and since the same was unilateral he had sent it back to the opposite parties. Further, the complainant has sworn that the opposite parties evaded the enquiry of the complainant as the offer in the agreement were not fully functional. It has been further sworn that, the opposite parties failed to issue purchase certificate as promised. The opposite parties have never turned up to deny the allegations levelled against them.
7. In the light of the above, from the documents and evidence on record, we are of the view that the act of the opposite parties in not providing the purchase certificate and the act of evading the enquiries of the complainant regarding the projects amount to deficiency in service. The learned counsel for the complainant has furnished the ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission, in Divya Sood (Smt) V. Gurdeep Kaur Bhuhi, reported in 1 (2007) CPJ 44 (NC), wherein it has been held that 'tempting advertisements giving misleading statements required to be controlled'. But the relevancy of the said decision in this case has not been enlightened by the counsel.
8. Any how, in the facts and circumstance of the case and taking into consideration the pleadings and documents we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid to the opposite parties along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and cost Rs.1,000/-. In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund Rs.1,10,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from 27/2/2010 till realisation. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 27th day of February, 2010.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No. 300/2006
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of purchase agreement dated 4/4/05. P2 : " a letter addressed to the complainant. P3 : " second reminder addressed to 2nd opp. Party.
P4 : " advocate notice dated 10/8/2006.
P5 : " temporary receipt Sl.No. 0112 dated 16/4/2005
P6 : " credit card statement.
P7 : " receipt Sl.No.0265 dated 19/4/2005.
Opposite partis' witness : NIL
IV.Opposite parties documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 300/2006 Filed on 08/11/2006 Dated: 27..02..2010 Complainant: Unnikrishnan, Rema, B4, Sub Registrar Lane, Sasthamangalam – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)
Opposite parties:
The Company Secretary, M/s. Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club (Division of Country Club India) Amrutha Castle No.5-9-06 Ltd.), Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 063. Royal Country, M/s. Royal Country Vacations International Holiday Club 723/A, Prathmesh Complex off Veera Desai Road, Extn. Oshiwara, Andheri (w) Mumbai – 400 053.
Addl. 3rd opp. party
The Country Club (India) Ltd., 1st Floor, Mathew Arcade, opp. Chaithanya Eye Hospital, Kesavadasapuram Jn., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
This O.P having been heard on 15..12..2009, the Forum on 27..02..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations by the complainant against the opposite parties are the following:- While the complainant, who is a Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank, was working in Mumbai, the executive of the 1st opposite party approached the complainant and lured him to join their holiday club scheme. The complainant paid Rs.1,10,000/- towards full payment of this scheme and No.RCV 8/8107 was assigned to him. On 16/2/2005 an agreement was executed with respect to the transaction. The period of the said agreement was for 25 years from the date of its execution. The complainant was offered holiday homes in India and also abroad. Eventhough the opposite parties promised to issue purchase certificate they failed to do so. The complainant learned that the offers in the agreement are not fully functional and hence the opposite party tried to evade the enquiry of the complainant regarding the project. Opposite parties to the utter surprise of the complainant sent a new agreement with some new covenants and omitted some terms, beneficient to the complaint which existed in the original agreement, to the present resident address of the complainant. The complainant send letter on 12/7/2005 resending the said new agreement. But the opposite parties are adopting a negligent attitude towards the complainant causing severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The above said actions of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence complainant send an advocate notice on 10/8/2006 to the opposite parties directing him to refund an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest. But there is no response from the oppposite party. Hence this complaint is necessitated. 2. Opposite parties remain ex-parte.
3. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The purchase agreement, Ext. P1, reveals that the complainant has made an agreement with the opposite parties in April 2005. From the payment terms in the said agreement it has been stated that balance due date Rupees as 'Nil'. Further the total purchase price has been mentioned as Rs. 1,10,000/- and RCI, fee for 1st two years as 'paid' and balance due as 'Nil'. As per Ext. P5, the opposite parties have issued a temporary receipt dated 16/4/2005 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Ext. P7 dated 19/4/2005 is the receipt for Rs.40,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. In Ext. P5 it has been printed that this acknowledgment will be confirmed by a Pucca receipt. Anyhow, the complainant has not produced any Pucca receipt. But from Ext. P6, the credit card statement dated 18/4/2005 it could be seen that an amount of Rs.70,000/- has been paid to Country Club India, Bombay. Thus payment of Rs. 70,000/- to the opposite parties stands proved by Ext. P6. Besides this the acceptance of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant by the opposite parties is proved by Ext. P7. From the above documents complainant has successfully established that an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- has been accepted by the opposite parties from the complainant.
6. Complainant has alleged that the opposite parties have sent a new unilateral agreement with some new covenants and omitting some terms beneficient to the complaint which existed in the original agreement. The letter sent by the Manager, Customer Care of the opposite parties which has been marked as Ext. P2 evidences the same wherein it has been stated that 'earlier membership which you were enrolled at Country vacations was for 25 years with 2 years, complimentary RCI membership. The new agreement is having some good features such as its for 30 years, with 5 years complimentary RCI membership'. As per Ext. P2 the complainant has been asked to sign the document and send the same. According to the complainant, the said agreement did not contain some terms beneficient to the complainant, which were already there in the previous agreement and since the same was unilateral he had sent it back to the opposite parties. Further, the complainant has sworn that the opposite parties evaded the enquiry of the complainant as the offer in the agreement were not fully functional. It has been further sworn that, the opposite parties failed to issue purchase certificate as promised. The opposite parties have never turned up to deny the allegations levelled against them.
7. In the light of the above, from the documents and evidence on record, we are of the view that the act of the opposite parties in not providing the purchase certificate and the act of evading the enquiries of the complainant regarding the projects amount to deficiency in service. The learned counsel for the complainant has furnished the ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission, in Divya Sood (Smt) V. Gurdeep Kaur Bhuhi, reported in 1 (2007) CPJ 44 (NC), wherein it has been held that 'tempting advertisements giving misleading statements required to be controlled'. But the relevancy of the said decision in this case has not been enlightened by the counsel.
8. Any how, in the facts and circumstance of the case and taking into consideration the pleadings and documents we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid to the opposite parties along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and cost Rs.1,000/-. In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund Rs.1,10,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from 27/2/2010 till realisation. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 27th day of February, 2010.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No. 300/2006
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of purchase agreement dated 4/4/05. P2 : " a letter addressed to the complainant. P3 : " second reminder addressed to 2nd opp. Party.
P4 : " advocate notice dated 10/8/2006.
P5 : " temporary receipt Sl.No. 0112 dated 16/4/2005
P6 : " credit card statement.
P7 : " receipt Sl.No.0265 dated 19/4/2005.
Opposite partis' witness : NIL
IV.Opposite parties documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
| | HONORABLE President, President | HONORABLE Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member | |
