COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 29.12.2010
DISPOSED ON: 19.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
19th DAY of JULY 2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.3019/2010 & 161/2011
Complaint no.3019/2010 Complainant OPPOSITE PARTY | Manje Gowda S/o Sanna Thammegowda, Aged about 28 years, Residing at No.29, Anjaneya Temple 1st Street, Link Road, Sheshadripura, Bangalore-560 020. Advocate: Sri.Shashi Kumar R., V/s THE COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD., Represented by Its Chairman and Managing Director, Mr. Y.Rajeev Reddy, Having its office at No.847, 100 feet Ring Road, Adjacent to Indiranagar Post Office, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038. Advocate: Sri.G.A.Gopi |
Complaint no.161/2011 Complainant | B.A.Karthikeya Prabhu, S/o Late H.M.Achi Khandar, Aged about 47 years, No.15, Lakshmi Nilaya, Simha Layout, Chikkalasandra, Subramanyapura Post, Bangalore-560 061. |
| Advocate: Sri.M.K.Subramanya V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. THE COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LIMITED, No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main, Indiranagar 1st Stage, Bangalore-560 038. Represented by its Managing Director. 2. THE COUNTRY CLUB (Bangalore), (A division of Contry Club (India) Ltd)., No.273, Defence Colony, H.A.L., 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038, Represented by its Manager. 3. THE COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD., No.55/1, (basement), Deverabesanahalli, Towards Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560 037, Represented by it Admin-Head. Advocate: Sri. G.A.Gopi, |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
These two complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund the membership fee with interest and award compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
OPs are common in both these complaints, the questions involved and the reliefs claimed is similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s both these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order.
2. In complaint No.3019/2010 the complainant became a member of OP-Club by paying total amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, in complaint No.161/2011 the complainant became a member of OPs-Club by paying total amount of Rs.1,15,000/-. The complainant claims that OPs-Club offered complementary plots and other services like to provide 6 nights and 7 days of complementary stay in any of the OPs club throughout the country providing Swimming pool and other facilities, club sports to children free of cost. OPs failed to fulfill its obligations by providing the sites as assured and also providing services, as such, the complainants felt deficiency in service, demanded for refund of the membership fee with interest and compensation.
3. The defence version of OPs in both complaints is that the complementary plots were allotted without any consideration the complainants were required to bear only the registration and maintenance charges. The complainants are not consumers as they have not paid any consideration for the complementary plots. It is stated that OP has already issued allotment letter in favour of complainant in complaint No.3019/2010 allotting a complementary plot at Phase A, Vedic Spa., asking the complainant to deposit Rs.15,000/- towards registration and maintenance charges but the complainant has not deposited, the same, the said complimentary plot formed called Vedic Spa is located at Penugonda, border of Karnataka, 30 kms away from Chikkaballapur and 70 kms from Bangalore. OP is prepared to register the said complementary plot situated in Sy.No.355/2, after the complainant makes payment of registration charges. The membership fee is nonrefundable. The complainant is enjoying the facilities provided by OP in their club. The refund of the entire amount cannot be granted since OP have provided all the services, only a direction to provide the complementary plot could be ordered as per the terms and conditions of the membership. It is admitted that the complainant has paid Rs.1,25,000/- membership fee, the payment towards renewal administration charges clearly indicates that the complainant has been utilizing the club facilities, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
4. In complaint No.161/2011 the main defence of the OPs is allotment letter allotting complementary plot No.1340 towards membership of complainant at Phas-XVIII Coconut Grove and another plot bearing No.1345 under MGM Scheme were allotted to the complainant asking him to deposited Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- respectively towards registration and maintenance charges. The complainant has not deposited the said amount. OPs are ready to register the complementary plots allotted on complainant depositing the required registration charges. OPs had asked the complainant to furnish his photograph to issue the permanent laminated membership card, however the complainant, till date has not furnished the same, without which OPs cannot issue permanent card. Such being the case, the complainant cannot blame OPs for non issuance of membership card. OP has provided all the services as promised under the scheme, there is no deficiency of service on their part, as such membership fee cannot refunded. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The complainants, in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The Assistant Administration Manager of OPs filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version and produced documents.
6. Arguments on both sides heard.
7. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have proved
the deficiency in service on the part of
the OPs in all these complaints?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants are
entitledfor the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
8. We record out findings on the above points are:
Point No.1:- Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
9. In complaint No.3019/2010 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 28.12.2007, Rs.5,000/- on 30.08.2008, Rs.25,000/- on 28.07.2008, Rs.35,000/- on 10.06.2008, Rs.10,000/- on 21.12.2008 and an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 26.04.2008 to OP towards membership fee and OP issued the receipts. OP is not disputing the fact of receipt of total membership fee of Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant. The main grievances of the complainant is, OP assured to allot complementary plots at Coconut Grove but has not allotted and registered the same and also not provided the services as assured while receiving the membership fee as such he is entitled for refund of the membership fee along with compensation.
10. The defence of the OP is complementary plot formed in Sy.No.355/02 at Vedic Spa, Phase-A is already allotted to the complainant but the complainant has not paid registration and maintenance charges of Rs.15,000/-, OP is prepared to register the site on depositing the said amount.
11. OP has produced conversion order in respect of certain lands in support its case but after going through the same it becomes clear that one Mr.Praveen Rao P.A.Holder of B.Chandraiah andother 18 persons being the owners of the lands has applied for the conversion and order has been passed, there is no material to show that OP has acquired any of these lands and has obtained conversion order for forming the layout. The copy of the layout plant stated to have been approved by Panchayath Secretary is produced and there is no mention in that plan about the name of the OP as applicant for having applied for approval of the layout. The survey number of the land is written by hand in that copy of the layout, it is doubtful as to whether this layout plan relates to Sy.No.355/02. Under these circumstances, without there being any approved layout plan and conversion order in the name of the OP, the defence of the OP that it is prepared to execute the registered deed in respect of complementary plot allotted cannot be accepted. The act of OP in not allotting and registering the complementary plot nor refunding the membership fee amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
12. In complaint No.161/2011, the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- on 06.11.2006 through credit card and further sum of Rs.30,000/- on 29.12.2006 and another sum of Rs.35,000/- on 23.02.2007 through credit card, thus in all the complainant paid sum of Rs.1,15,000/- towards membership fee and OPs have issued the receipts for having received the said amount. The main grievances of the complainant is OPs failed to fulfill its obligation in allotting and registering the complementary plots at Coconut Grove, as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further, it is contended that OPs not provided the services as assured and failed to refund the amount paid towards membership fee, as such the complainant is entitled for claiming the refund of the amount with compensation.
13. The defence of the OPs is complementary plots bearing No.1340 and 1345 situated at Coconut Grove are already allotted in favour of the complainant and complainant has not paid the registration and maintenance charges of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/-, in view of the same, OPs were unable to register the said sites. Even now OPs are prepared to register the said sites on complainant depositing the registration and maintenance charges of Rs.35,000/-, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has been utilizing the facilities of the club, he is not entitled for refund of the membership fee.
14. OP has produced allotment letter of site No.1340 and letter dated.07.11.2006. The copy of the conversion order has not been produced, though it is stated in Memo filed on 08.06.2011, as OPs have not produced any material to show that there is any approved layout relating to Coconut Grove wherein these 2 sites bearing No.1340 and 1345 are situated and there is any conversion order in respect of the land wherein these 2 sites are formed. No material is produced for having acquired the land for formation of the sites in the said layout without their being any such materials, we are unable to accept the defence that OP is prepared to execute the registered deed in respect of these two complementary plots in favour of the complainant. There is no merit in the contention that membership fee is nonrefundable. The act of OP in not registering the complementary plots and providing the services assured or non-refunding the membership fee amounts deficiency on its part. The complainants are entitled for the refund of the amount with interest at 12% p.a. as compensation and returns from such amounts if invested in sum other project. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part.
1. In complaint No.3019/2010 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- -with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
In complaint No.161/2011 OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- -with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.
Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.3019/2010 and a copy of it shall be placed in other complaint.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of JULY – 2011.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
