O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the OP in brief is, that he became a member of OP as a Coolcard member by paying Rs.90,000/- in few installments. That on 16-1/2007 representative of the OP offered a special package for Rs.1,15,000/- assuring free plots measuring 1089 Sq feet at the Country Club Coconut Groove with other fecilities. He believing such assurance paid another sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Ops on 7-2-2007 and thereby has in all paid Rs.1,15,000/-. On 7-2-2007 Op issued an allotment letter allotting site No 173 at Phase 13 of Coconut Groove. On the same day he offered to pay Rs.15,000/- to the Ops for confirmation but OP officials informed him to pay that amount at the time of registration. Thereafter he visited Op not less than 20 times requesting the Ops to execute title deed, but they did not respond. Then he gave a representation on 6-8-2009 for cancellation of membership and repay his amount with interest. Then he also got issued a legal notice on 30-9-2009 reminding them to repay his money but the OP has not responded therefore has prayed for a direction to Op to refund his money with interest.<br /> <br /> Op has appeared through his Advocate who only has filed version signed by him whereas the OP has neither verified the statement nor signed to it. In the version filed by the Advocate for Op contended that the complainant who received allotment letter on 7-2-2007 has not approached the OP for registration of the site and there is delay of more than 2 years in filing the complaint. That there is no previty of contract between the parties, therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The OP has admitted that the complainant is a member of their Club but contended that there is difference of initials as shown in the complaint and the documents as such the complaint is not maintainable. That they have several phases in Coconut Groove and Vedic Spa / Banyan Tree, several phase coconut groove are located in different parts of Tumkur District which is called Coconut Groove and several phases of Spa / Banyan tree located near Hindupur / Penukonda. He has further stated the complainant has only paid Rs.90,000/- to them denied to have received another Rs.25000/- on 7-2-2009 and thereby denied to have received Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant. That the membership fee paid is not refundable and he is ready to execute sale deed and register the site if the complainant deposits the amount towards registration and maintenance charges and he further denying the other allegations has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Vijay D.P. have filed their affidavit / evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced receipt for having paid membership fee, communications sent by the OP to him and the letter of allotment dated 7-2-2007 with the copy of legal notice and certain other offers made by the OP. Op at the time of argument has produced a copy of membership application, copy of letter of allotment and a zerox copy of proposed layout plan. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments almost reproducing what is stated in the affidavit in the written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the Op and perused the records.<br /> <br /> On the above contentions following points for determination arise<br /> i) Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service by not allotting sites and a execution of sale deed?<br /> ii) To what relief the complaint is entitled?<br /> Our finding are as under:<br /> <br /> Answer on Point No:1 In the affirmative<br /> Answer on Point No:2 To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS <br /> Answer on Point No:1 As gone through the contentions of the parties there is no dispute that the complainant became a Cool Card Member of Op Club on 8-8-2006. His contention that the OP approached him and offered a special package for Rs.1,15000/- promising to provide free plots measuring 1089 Sq Ft at the Country Club Coconut Groove and the other facilities is not denied by the OP. But the claim of the complainant that he has in all paid Rs.1,15,000/- towards the membership fee and became eligible for free plots is disputed by the OP by contending that the complainant has only paid Rs.90,000/- and denied to had received additional payment of Rs.25,000/- said to have been made by the complainant on 7-2-2007. On perusal of the receipts produced by the complainant, it is seen that the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- on 8-8-2006, Rs.30,000/- on 19-12-2006, Rs.10,000/- on23-12-2006 and again Rs.25,000/- on 17-2-2007. These payments together come to Rs.1,15,000/-. The Op has not disputed the genuiness of these documents and the evidence of the complainant that he has in all paid Rs.1,15,000/- has remained unrebuted. As such we find no hesitation to hold that the complainant has paid in all Rs.1,15,000/- to the OP.<br /> <br /> OP through his letter dated: 7-2-2007 requested the complainant to pay Rs.15,000/- by further informing the complainant to have allotted site No: 173 Coconut groove phase 13. He again through his letter dated 7-4-2007 confirmed the allotment and requested the complainant to pay Rs.20,000/- towards site confirmation administrative charges by furthering as many as other ten facilities through his letter dated 16-1-2007. But thereafter it is found that the OP did not precipitate the matter further and made final allotment of the site. The sworn statement of the complainant that he approached OP not less than 20 times requesting him to execute title deed but the Op did not respond has not been controverted by the OP. Thereafter it is further found that when the OP did not respond to his requests the complainant approached OP and gave a request form making a remark that he is not satisfied with the service of the OP requested him to cancel his membership and then for refund of money which was reiterated through the legal notice he got issued on 30-9-2009. OP got reply sent to the counsel of the complainant on 26-10-2009 offering to execute registered documents on the complainant paying registration charges. But the fact remains that the OP who received request form from the complainant for canceling his membership on 6-8-2009 did not respond to it. The OP it is found not only through his replies to the legal notice, version and affidavit evidence has offered to register the site on the complainant paying registration charges. Therefore whether that offer of the OP is genuine and honest let us see from the developments in this regard.<br /> <br /> The OP it is noticed after receipt of Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant issued an allotment letter on 7-2-2007 declaring to have allotted a complementary site at coconut groove Phase 13, site No 173 measuring 1089 sq ft. To know where this site is situated, the OP in his affidavit evidence has stated as if that coconut groove and Vedic Spa/Banyan tree situated at several places in Tumkur District and near Hindupur. It emerges that it is not made known to the knowledge of the complainant in which layout in which village of the Tumkur District or Hindupur on which Survey Number, the OP has allotted site to the complainant. The allotment letter as found do not contain any particulars either the layout, village, Survey number, Taluk, District or even State leave alone the other description of the site. The allotment letter as found is nothing but an imaginary letter and an imaginary site. If the claim of the OP were to be genuine atleast even now they should have stated in their version and in their affidavit as to which Survey Number or village they have formed site and have allotted to the complainant. Even copies of documents produced at the time of arguments namely the proposed layout plan Coconut Groove is not an authenticated. In this sketch it is shown that the OP has formed a layout at Halenahalli Village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. But it is not clear from the copy whether it is approved by the competent authority or not. The big surprise is that this layout plan contain maximum 88 sites and we do not find site No 173 shown to have been allotted to the complainant. Therefore in the absence of such particulars should we not say that the offer of the Op to register the site on payment of registration fee is imaginary and nothing but hoodwinking. The complainant after having understood all these, if he had asked for refund of money how can anyone find fault with is a question to be answered by the OP. OP has not pleaded and proved that the complainant has utilized their service of any magnitude. Hence when the complainant has paid Rs.1,15,000/-, not availed the service of the OP of atleast worth of a pie how can we say that the OP is not liable to refund that money on the ground of not refundability. Under these circumstances , we find that the complainant has made out a case for refund of money and the OP is liable to comply. OP having used these money for his advantage in the roaring market is liable to repay the amount with interest at 18% p.a. which we find as reasonable. In the result, we answer point No-1 in the affirmative and we pass the following.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments until it is refunded. OP shall repay that amount with interest within 60 days from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> OP shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br />