DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: 1228/2015
Date of Institution: 05.11.2015
Date of Decision: 29.03.2016
Dr. B.S. Garg S/o Late Sh. Shambu Ram R/o Street No. 7, K.C. Road, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The Country Club, 6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad- 500016 through its Managing Director/Chairman/Authorised Representative;
2. Managing Director, The Country Club, Hyderabad.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.S. Sekhu counsel for the complainant
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI S.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Dr. B.S. Garg has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against The Country Club and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the opposite parties are engaged in providing services of hotel accommodations, stay to the members of its Club namely Country Club. On 4/5 August, the complainant received a call on his Mobile No. 98150-60668 of some person, who representing himself to be an executive of opposite parties and the said representative narrated schemes of the Country Club and thus lured the complainant to be a member of the Country Club of opposite parties. It is further averred that the said executive assured the complainant to provide the best services of accommodation at the beautiful Country Club properties and its affiliated properties free of cost and called upon the complainant to visit at Gazal Hotel, Barnala at about 1:30 PM on 7.8.2015. Upon such assurance of the agent of opposite parties, the complainant visited the Gazal Hotel, Barnala on 7.8.2015 and attended the demonstration provided by the opposite parties. Upon believing the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant paid Rs. 2,75,000/- in cash and became a member of the opposite parties for a period of 30 years and was assigned a club membership No. CCDL61CLUB30LR22484. It is further averred that the opposite parties claimed that the actual membership fee is Rs. 3.5 Lakhs and as a previous customer, the complainant was required to pay Rs. 2.75 Lakhs only. Moreover, the opposite parties also provided some free gift vouchers to the complainant in the name of complainant, Pooja Garg & Anshul Garg. After receiving the said gift vouchers, it came to the knowledge of complainant that the opposite parties will be charged booking charges to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- and only after receiving the booking charges their holiday package will be confirmed. It is further averred that the callous attitude of the opposite parties it is also evident from the fact that voucher required to be issued in the name of Poonam Garg wife of the complainant was infact issued in the name of Pooja Garg. It is further averred that the complainant planned a holiday tour and thus made inquiries for the accommodation from the opposite parties and after making the inquiries it come to the knowledge of the complainant that the opposite parties are not having any 5/7 star accommodation properties or any of its affiliated properties and as such the complainant opted to cancel his holiday tour. It is further averred that the opposite parties had collected money from other persons by making such assurances. It is further averred that the complainant not being satisfied from the actual services of the opposite parties and finding out about all the false pretexts & assurances. He sent e-mail dated 8.8.2015 to Abhishek Gautam, the executive of opposite parties for the cancellation of his membership and to refund the membership fee. It is further averred that the opposite parties assured the complainant that his request for cancellation of membership is being processed and he will get a confirmation with regard to the cancellation of his membership. It is further averred that till today the complainant has not received any information from the opposite parties with regard to the cancellation of his membership and thus the opposite parties is guilty of deficiency in service and hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
To refund the aforementioned amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- alongwith interest.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of this complaint issued to the opposite parties, but they did not appear and were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt Ex.C-2, copy of gift voucher dated 7.8.2015 Ex.C-3, copy of emails Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.
6. The first question is to determine whether this Forum at Barnala has territorial jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- to the opposite parties at Barnala and the Executive of opposite parties had also visited District Barnala, where he demonstrated and lured the complainant to become the member of the Club. Therefore, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction.
7. It is relevant to go through the documents placed on record by the complainant to support his contentions. Ex.C-2 is the receipt alleged to be issued by the opposite parties in the name of complainant. Perusal of the same shows that the Head Office of the Club is mentioned as:-
“Head Office: The Country Club, 6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016, All Disputes subject to Hyderabad Jurisdiction”
8. There is nothing in the receipt Ex.C-2, which may show that the payment of Rs. 2.75 Lakhs has been received by the opposite parties at Barnala. Ex.C-3 is the gift voucher in favour of Pooja Garg. Perusal of the same also shows the address of the opposite parties at Hyderabad. There is again nothing in the said gift vouchers to indicate that these have been issued at Barnala. Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are the e-mails, which also shows that the complainant has sent the e-mails for cancellation of his membership at the address of Hyderabad.
9. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the payment was made at Barnala is not supported by any document/receipt. Moreover, it is not disputed that the opposite parties have not any branch office at Barnala.
10. In these circumstances, it is relevant to refer Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as under.-
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.-
(1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District
Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees twently lakhs)
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.-
(a) opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
11. Apart from the ibid Section, it is also relevant to refer the case titled Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 (1) CLT 252, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as:
“when the insurance policy was taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala and since no cause of action arose at Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has no territorial jurisdiction and State Consumer Redressal
Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that Expression 'branch office' is amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.”
12. In case titled “M/s Sethi Agriculture Store v/s Gurdev Singh, First Appeal No.1114 of 2011 decided on 20.3.2013, the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab while dealing with a case where the seed was purchased from Sirsa and sown in village Sanga, in District Mansa, was pleased to observe that:
“in the present case only the District Forum at Sirsa had the jurisdiction”
13. As a result of the above discussion and in view of the authorities, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, present complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant against proper receipt with the liberty to present the same in the appropriate Forum. There is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
29th Day of March, 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
