<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 04th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOs. 1687/2008, 459/2009 468/2009, 474/2009, 475/2009 & 500/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1687/2008COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.459/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.468/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.474/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.475/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.500/2009COMPLAINANT Wing Commander D C Pandey,C/o Chief Instructor,Fixed Wing Training Faculty,Air Force Station,Yelahanka,Bangalore – 560063.Also atWing Commander D C Pandey,C/o Commanding Officer,12 Squadron, Air Force,C/o 56 APO.Advocate – Nandita HaldipurSri.K.Pradeep,Aged about 33 years,S/o K.Kittannacharya,Residing at No.23,Gagan Nivas, 1st Main, 1st Floor, Yallamma Temple Street,R.T Nagar Post, Ganganagar,Bangalore – 560 032.Advocate – Sri.Muniswamy GowdaSri.Ananda Theerthan,S/o Late K.Subba Rao,Aged about 52 years,R/at No.5, Vaishanavi Layout,Vidhyaranyapura,Near Air force Compound,Bangalore – 560 097.Advocate – Sri.PrabhakarMr.Bhupendra Judge,S/o Khazan Singh Judge,Aged 33 years,C/o Mrs.Anita Losang,Resident of No.470,5th ‘A’ Cross,8th Main, V Stage, II Phase,B.E.M.L Layout,Rajarejeshwari Nagar, Bangalore – 560 098.Mrs.Anita Losang,W/o Mr.N.Awang,Aged 38 years,Resident of No.470,5th ‘A’ Cross,8th Main, V Stage, II Phase,B.E.M.L Layout,Rajarejeshwari Nagar, Bangalore – 560 098.Advocate – Sri.I.S.Pramod ChandraSaurabh Srivastava,A-2 Nigam Niwas,1st ‘C’ Cross,Kaggadaspura Main Road,CV Ramannagar,Bangalore,Karnataka - 560093<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES V/s1) The Country Club Bangalore,# 19, 1st Floor, 13th Cross,7th Main, Indiranagar 1st StageBangalore – 560038.2) Chairman & Managing Director, Country Club (India) Ltd.,No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,Indira Nagar, 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.3) The Managing Director,M/s. Country Club India Ltd.,# 273, 1st Main Road,Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar,Bangalore – 560 038.4) The Manager,Amrutha Estates,No.478, “Maha Padma”,1st Main, 1st Stage,Indira Nagar,Bangalore – 560 038.Advocate – Sri.S.M.Manjunatha<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by each one these respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund what ever the amount they have paid and pay a compensation and damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> As the opposite parties in all the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, these cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:<br /> 2. Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP thought of becoming the member of the club under various schemes. OP accepted their membership and collected the fees not only that OP has collected the monthly subscription fees also. OP promised so many attractive offers like ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay for 6 nights and 7 days, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay, complimentary sites etc. But thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of theirs complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainants in not providing the basic facilities and the services as promised. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For the convenience sake the card membership, amount paid, membership number, date of legal notice noted below in the chart. When the repeated requests and demands made by the complainants have gone in vain they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> Sl No. Complaint No. Card member ship Amount paid Member ship No. Notice / / Legal Notice <br /> 1) 1687/2008 Mr.Cool Card Membership Rs.1,15,000/- COOL CG4816 13.11.2007<br /> 2) 459/2009 Mr.Kool CardLife Membership Rs.1,45,000/- KOOL 2553 ---------------<br /> 3) 468/2009 Mr.Cool Card Membership Rs.1,42,500/- COOL CG4849 24.12.2008<br /> 4) 474/2009 Mr.Super Cool Membership Rs.1,99,000/- COOL S 290 29.08.2008<br /> 5) 475/2009 Mr.Super Cool Membership Rs.1,89,000/- COOL S 273 29.08.2008<br /> 6) 500/2009 Mr.Kool Life Rs.2,20,000/- KOOL 3838 ---------------<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in all the complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the version is as under:<br /> <br /> According to OP the club membership fee that is paid by each one of these complainants is non refundable. It is further contended that the OP’s are ready to execute the deed with respect to the complimentary sites in favour of the complainants as soon as complainants pay the registration and other miscellaneous charges as required. Each one of these complainants have extensively used the club facilities. The other allegations made by the complainants are all false and frivolous. Complaints are devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation nor obliged to refund the fees. Among these grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant’s have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant’s are <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. At the out set it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants become the member of the OP scheme as noted in the chart. OP accepted their membership and allotted them certain number. It is also not at dispute that OP collected the membership fees as well as service charges as noted in the chart from each one of these complainants. Now the main grievance of the complainants is that though OP collected the service charges failed to provide the facilities as promised.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the complainants in complaint Nos.1687/2008 and 468/2009 OP promised them to provide stay at ‘Royal Goan Beach club’ for 6 nights and 7days, free air ticket to Goa and stay at wildlife resort, ‘BUSH BETTA’ and other facilities. In spite of their repeated requests and demands OP failed to extend the said service as promised. The evidence of the complainant’s which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. Even there is a promise of complimentary plots, they are not given and registered.<br /> <br /> 8. When OP failed to heed to their demand complainants even caused the notice / legal notice on 13.11.2007, 24.12.2008 and 29.08.2008. Copies of the notice / legal notice, postal acknowledgements are produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainants felt deficiency in service. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk their responsibility and obligation. The defence of the OP that what ever the club membership fees paid is non refundable has no basis. <br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that even now it is ready to execute the sale deed with respect to the complimentary sites if complainants pay required registration fees and stamp duty. No where complainants have sought for allotment of a complimentary site in their favour and registration of the same. So this defence of the OP is very strange. <br /> <br /> 10. OP is not very much sure about its own defence. No where OP has stated that it provided ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay as contended by the complainants. So when there is no specific denial of the said allegations, in our view it amounts to an admission. Though OP received such a huge amount from each one of these complainants but failed to provide the said facilities as promised thereby accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of theirs. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> <br /> 11. The approach of the OP does not appear to be as very much fair and honest. Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Under such circumstances they are entitled for certain relief. Of course the claim of compensation by these complaints appears to be exorbitant and high. There is no basis for the said claim. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund what ever the amount it has received from the complainants towards membership along with token of compensation and litigation cost. With these observations we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complaints are allowed in part.<br /> <br /> 1. In complaint No.1687/2008 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from December 2001 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 2. In complaint No.459/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from January 2008 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. In complaint No.468/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,42,500/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from February 2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 4. In complaint No.474/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,99,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from February 2006 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. In complaint No.475/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,89,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from January 2006 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. In complaint No.500/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.2,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from September 2008 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1687/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.<br /> <br /> (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 04th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br />