The Country Club ( India) Limited, V/S Sri, R, Murulidhara. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

cc/10/281

Sri, R, Murulidhara. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Country Club ( India) Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2010

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. cc/10/281

Sri, R, Murulidhara.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Country Club ( India) Limited,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 11.02.2010 DISPOSED ON: 26.07.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26TH JULY 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.280 & 281/2010 COMPLAINT NO.280/10 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. Gopal Jain, S/o Dharamchand, Aged about 40 years, R/at 477, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, Attur Layout Yelahanka, Near Vidya Sagar School, Bangalore 560 064. Advocate: Sri N. Savanur V/s. The Country Club (India) Limited, No.675, 9th A Main, 1st Stage, Indiranagar 1st Stage, Bangalore 560 038. Rep: by its Manager. Advocate: Sri G.A. Gopi COMPLAINT NO.281/10 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. R. Murlidhara, S/o M. Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.9/510, 5th Cross, 1st Main, Attur Layout Yelahanka, Bangalore 560 064. Advocate: Sri N. Savanur V/s. The Country Club (India) Limited, No.675, 9th A Main, 1st Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. Rep: by its Manager. Advocate: Sri G.A. Gopi O R D E R S SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amounts paid towards membership fees, registration charges with interest at 18% p.a. and also for suitable damages on an allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is common in both these complaints, the facts and questions involved for consideration are common. In order to avoid repetition of reasonings and duplication of facts; both these complaints are disposed of by this common order. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of each one of these complaints, are as under: 2. In complaint No.280/10 the complainant claims that OP with an assurance of allotting complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore received his membership fee of Rs.1,25,000/- and in addition he has paid an amount of Rs.55,000/- towards registration charges and Rs.7,338/- as administrative charges in all Rs.1,87,338/-. OP failed to provide the service assured and allot the complimentary plot and register the same as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, in view of the same OP is to be directed is to be refund the amount with interest. 3. In complaint No.281/10 the complainant claims that OP with an assurance of allotting complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore received membership fee of Rs.1,15,000/-, in addition he has paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards registration charges and Rs.7,338/- towards administrative charges in all Rs.1,37,338/-. OP has not provided the services as assured and failed to allot the complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore and register the same in his favour as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, amount paid is to be refunded with interest. 4. In the version filed OP has taken the defence that there was no any assurance to allot sites surrounding Bangalore, the sites formed in other places are already allotted in favour of the complainants, but the complainants have failed to deposit the registration charges, as such OP could not register the sites in favour of the complainants. Further the defence is that the complaints are barred by limitation, the membership fee paid is non-refundable, the complimentary plots are not for any consideration, complainants are not consumers, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further OP admitted the receipt of membership fee, but denied the payments of other charges as claimed by the complainants. Thus OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. The Manager (Customer Care) of the OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents. 6. The complainant filed written arguments, arguments heard on both sides. Points for consideration are: Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 7. We record our findings on the above points: Point No.1:- In Affirmative. Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants in both these complaints became the members of the OP club by paying the membership fee. The complainant in complaint No.280/10 paid Rs.1,25,000/- and the complaint No.281/10 paid an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- towards membership fee. The complainants have not produced any material to show that in addition to that they have paid the other charges like registration charges and administrative charges. Without any supporting documents in support of other payments only on the basis of the affidavit evidence of the complainants it is not possible to accept that the complainants in addition to membership fee have paid the other charges to the OP as claimed in the complaints. 9. The copy of the membership application produced in complaint No.280/10 reveals that the complainant was assured to allot complimentary plot at Coconut Groove Banayan Tree. The allotment letter dated 25.04.2008 reveals that site No.690 at Vedic Country Spa Project II Kool is allotted to the complainant and he was requested to pay Rs.15,000/- towards site confirmation, administrative charges which includes the registration charges and stamp fees. That allotment letter was valid for 30 days from the date of the letter. From the affidavit evidence of the complainant it becomes clear that at the time of receiving the membership fee OP assured to allot complimentary sites surrounding Bangalore, but now the said allotted is at Vedic Country Spa. The place where exactly the site is situated is not mentioned, the site at Coconut Groove, Banayan Tree is not allotted as assured on the admission application. The documents produced by OP are copy of membership application and allotment letter. OP has not provided the services as assured by allotting complimentary plot surrounding Bangalore. 10. In complaint No.281/10 OP while congratulating the complainant for having become the member stated that complimentary plot at Coconut Groove will be allotted without mentioning place of location of the layout. In the letter of allotment dated 12.11.2007 it is shown that site No.226 at Coconut Groove Phase VIII is allotted to the complainant and that letter of allotment was valid for 30 days from the date of the letter. Further the complainant was requested to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- towards site confirmation administrative charges which includes stamp paper fee and registration expenses. It may be noted that as per the affidavit evidence of the complainant and complaint averments OP while receiving the membership fee assured to allot complimentary plot surrounding Bangalore, but the allotment letter issued relates to site formed at Coconut Groove Phase VIII. The conversion order and layout approved stands in the name of one Allasubbareddy. OP has not produced any material for having acquired any lands and formed any layout with due approval of the statutory authorities. 11. As OP failed to provide the services as assured at the time of complainants becoming members by not allotting the complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore, the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP has not acquired any lands and formed any approved layouts. The allotment letters of complimentary plots issued without showing the place of location of the sites are only paper allotments. In view of the same the complainants are justified in demanding for refund of the membership fee with interest. There is no merit in the contention that the membership fee paid is non-refundable and that the complaints are barred by limitation. Once the OP has accepted the membership of the complainants with assurance of allotting complimentary plots, till the allotment and registration of the complimentary plots, the cause of action continues, as the same is recurring cause of action. Under these circumstances the complainants are entitled for the reliefs for refund of the membership amounts with interest and litigation cost. 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.280/10 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 2. In complaint No.281/10 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization with 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.280/2010 and a copy of it shall be placed in complaint No.281/10. (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 26th day of July 2010.) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Snm:

COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 11.02.2010 DISPOSED ON: 26.07.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26TH JULY 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.280 & 281/2010 COMPLAINT NO.280/10 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. Gopal Jain, S/o Dharamchand, Aged about 40 years, R/at 477, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, Attur Layout Yelahanka, Near Vidya Sagar School, Bangalore 560 064. Advocate: Sri N. Savanur V/s. The Country Club (India) Limited, No.675, 9th A Main, 1st Stage, Indiranagar 1st Stage, Bangalore 560 038. Rep: by its Manager. Advocate: Sri G.A. Gopi COMPLAINT NO.281/10 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. R. Murlidhara, S/o M. Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.9/510, 5th Cross, 1st Main, Attur Layout Yelahanka, Bangalore 560 064. Advocate: Sri N. Savanur V/s. The Country Club (India) Limited, No.675, 9th A Main, 1st Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. Rep: by its Manager. Advocate: Sri G.A. Gopi O R D E R S SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amounts paid towards membership fees, registration charges with interest at 18% p.a. and also for suitable damages on an allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is common in both these complaints, the facts and questions involved for consideration are common. In order to avoid repetition of reasonings and duplication of facts; both these complaints are disposed of by this common order. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of each one of these complaints, are as under: 2. In complaint No.280/10 the complainant claims that OP with an assurance of allotting complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore received his membership fee of Rs.1,25,000/- and in addition he has paid an amount of Rs.55,000/- towards registration charges and Rs.7,338/- as administrative charges in all Rs.1,87,338/-. OP failed to provide the service assured and allot the complimentary plot and register the same as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, in view of the same OP is to be directed is to be refund the amount with interest. 3. In complaint No.281/10 the complainant claims that OP with an assurance of allotting complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore received membership fee of Rs.1,15,000/-, in addition he has paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards registration charges and Rs.7,338/- towards administrative charges in all Rs.1,37,338/-. OP has not provided the services as assured and failed to allot the complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore and register the same in his favour as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, amount paid is to be refunded with interest. 4. In the version filed OP has taken the defence that there was no any assurance to allot sites surrounding Bangalore, the sites formed in other places are already allotted in favour of the complainants, but the complainants have failed to deposit the registration charges, as such OP could not register the sites in favour of the complainants. Further the defence is that the complaints are barred by limitation, the membership fee paid is non-refundable, the complimentary plots are not for any consideration, complainants are not consumers, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further OP admitted the receipt of membership fee, but denied the payments of other charges as claimed by the complainants. Thus OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. The Manager (Customer Care) of the OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents. 6. The complainant filed written arguments, arguments heard on both sides. Points for consideration are: Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 7. We record our findings on the above points: Point No.1:- In Affirmative. Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants in both these complaints became the members of the OP club by paying the membership fee. The complainant in complaint No.280/10 paid Rs.1,25,000/- and the complaint No.281/10 paid an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- towards membership fee. The complainants have not produced any material to show that in addition to that they have paid the other charges like registration charges and administrative charges. Without any supporting documents in support of other payments only on the basis of the affidavit evidence of the complainants it is not possible to accept that the complainants in addition to membership fee have paid the other charges to the OP as claimed in the complaints. 9. The copy of the membership application produced in complaint No.280/10 reveals that the complainant was assured to allot complimentary plot at Coconut Groove Banayan Tree. The allotment letter dated 25.04.2008 reveals that site No.690 at Vedic Country Spa Project II Kool is allotted to the complainant and he was requested to pay Rs.15,000/- towards site confirmation, administrative charges which includes the registration charges and stamp fees. That allotment letter was valid for 30 days from the date of the letter. From the affidavit evidence of the complainant it becomes clear that at the time of receiving the membership fee OP assured to allot complimentary sites surrounding Bangalore, but now the said allotted is at Vedic Country Spa. The place where exactly the site is situated is not mentioned, the site at Coconut Groove, Banayan Tree is not allotted as assured on the admission application. The documents produced by OP are copy of membership application and allotment letter. OP has not provided the services as assured by allotting complimentary plot surrounding Bangalore. 10. In complaint No.281/10 OP while congratulating the complainant for having become the member stated that complimentary plot at Coconut Groove will be allotted without mentioning place of location of the layout. In the letter of allotment dated 12.11.2007 it is shown that site No.226 at Coconut Groove Phase VIII is allotted to the complainant and that letter of allotment was valid for 30 days from the date of the letter. Further the complainant was requested to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- towards site confirmation administrative charges which includes stamp paper fee and registration expenses. It may be noted that as per the affidavit evidence of the complainant and complaint averments OP while receiving the membership fee assured to allot complimentary plot surrounding Bangalore, but the allotment letter issued relates to site formed at Coconut Groove Phase VIII. The conversion order and layout approved stands in the name of one Allasubbareddy. OP has not produced any material for having acquired any lands and formed any layout with due approval of the statutory authorities. 11. As OP failed to provide the services as assured at the time of complainants becoming members by not allotting the complimentary plots surrounding Bangalore, the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP has not acquired any lands and formed any approved layouts. The allotment letters of complimentary plots issued without showing the place of location of the sites are only paper allotments. In view of the same the complainants are justified in demanding for refund of the membership fee with interest. There is no merit in the contention that the membership fee paid is non-refundable and that the complaints are barred by limitation. Once the OP has accepted the membership of the complainants with assurance of allotting complimentary plots, till the allotment and registration of the complimentary plots, the cause of action continues, as the same is recurring cause of action. Under these circumstances the complainants are entitled for the reliefs for refund of the membership amounts with interest and litigation cost. 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.280/10 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 2. In complaint No.281/10 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization with 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.280/2010 and a copy of it shall be placed in complaint No.281/10. (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 26th day of July 2010.) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Snm: