Date of Filing: 22/07/2011
Date of Order: 14/09/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1352 OF 2011
Dr. M. Shivalingam & Smt.P.Chandra Prabha,
R/at: # 5/26, BDA Flats, 1st ‘A’ Cross,
Cambridge Layout, Halasuru,
Bangalore-560 008.
(Rep. by In-person) Complainant.
-V/s-
The Manager,
The Country Club,
Corporate Office South,
Indiranagar, HAL 2nd Stage,
Bangalore – 560 038.
Also at: (New Address)
The Manager, The country Club India Limited,
# 273, 1st Main, Defence Colony,
H.A.L 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038.
(Behind C.M.H. Hospital)
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.Sreenidhi.V.) Opposite party.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest, are necessary:-
The complainant lured by the offer letter of the Deputy Manager of the opposite party by name Mr.Kubendra dated: 07.10.2008 for their Cool Club Membership to CK-27 by paying an additional sum of Rs.60,000/- stating that club is ready for usage within six months probably by April-2009 i.e., the club at Indiranagar, Koramangala, J.P.Nagar, since the complainants are nearby Indiranagar wanted to use the facility of the club at Indiranagar paid Rs.60,000\- on 09.10.2008 to the opposite parties. The up-gradation has been confirmed by the opposite parties on 28.10.2010. But till today the indiranagar club is not ready yet and there is no indication of any development of the club and even the place in indiranagar is not identified. The complainants made several phone calls, approached the opposite parties, sent e-mails even on 25.02.2011 and 21.03.2011, but nothing happened. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
It is true that the opposite parties introduced a scheme CK-27. According to which a member of the club if pays additional sum will get facilities in country club CK 27 affiliated to 225 clubs in India, Holiday Package of 2 night 3 days stay in Bandipur, Bush Betta, Holiday package to RGBC Goa for 6 nights 7 days, Holiday package of 2 nights 3 days complimentary stay at different places for 5 years across the country once in a year from the date of membership along with club facilities. The opposite party has started seven clubs in Bangalore city i.e., in Yelahanka, Mysore Road and Sarjapur, Bannerghatta Road, Magadi Road, Hosur Road, Doddaballapur Road and CK-27 club in Koramangala which are fully functioning. The complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- and became the member of the opposite party bearing membership No.BLGCS108. Thereafter having learnt about the CK-27 scheme, applied for the upgradation of the membership by paying Rs.60,000/- and thus he had paid Rs.90,000/- in all. The opposite party inducted the complainant as a member under CK27 scheme and issued a membership card bearing No. CK 143A. The complainant has given discount of Rs.9,000/- for this membership. Opposite party is in the business of providing hospitality services to its members and there is no dispute or deficiency in service in the hospitality services i.e., the club business of the opposite party. In terms and conditions it is agreed that the opposite party would construct the building at other localities on completion of legal requirements to necessary conversions and surveys and other Government formalities. As per Clause-17 of the agreement it is the court of Secunderabad and Hyderabad had jurisdiction. The amount cannot be refunded. There is no agreement that within 6 months Indiranagar club will be started. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, both the parties have filed their respective affidavits and the opposite party has also filed the written arguments. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the act of the opposite party in not starting the Indiranagar Club and giving service of Indiranagar club to the complainant right from the date of up-gradation of the membership of the complainant till date is deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A):In the Positive
Point (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainants are the husband and wife and the husband is a retired Central Government employee and is living in his pension. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant was a member of the opposite party club by paying Rs.30,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that on 07.10.2008 he applied to the opposite party for up-gradation of the members stating that, if the members pays Rs.60,000/- as an up-gradation fee they will be given certain other benefits. The said offer reads thus:-
Accordingly the complainant has paid Rs.60,000/- to the opposite party on that day which was received by the opposite party and his membership has been upgraded and he was given the membership No.CK.143A but the complainants were not given the club facilities at Indiranagar. From 2008 to 2011 the opposite party has not started the club at Indiranagar. The complainant wanted club facility at Indiranagar for which he had upgraded his membership. The opposite party has not produced a scrap of paper to show where they wanted house the Indiranagar club? What steps they had taken to build or open the Indiranagar Club? When it is going to be opened? All remains ? Offering club membership at every places and denying the club facility at the places is nothing but an deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.
7. In this case it was contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction and only the jurisdiction of Hyderabad and Secunderabad is there. This is an untenable contention. If two courts have jurisdiction where cause of action arose at two places, the parties can restrict the jurisdiction to one Court or Forum, but in this case the complainant was offered upgradation of membership at Bangalore, it was accepted at Bangalore, amount was paid at Bangalore, the club had to be started at Indiranagar and it was denied till today. Hence the cause of action arose at Bangalore and not at Secunderabad or Hyderabad. Hence the contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction is untenable contention.
8. The parties have citied decision of Bangalore Urban Principal District Consumer Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No.658/2011 dated: 02.08.2011, and 11(1993) CPJ 155 (NC), III (2004) CPJ 227. There is no dispute about the laws stated therein. The facts and circumstances of those cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case to any extent in any manner what so ever. Discussing and distinguishing prohibited Under Regulation 18(5) of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005. Hence it has not been cited in extenso.
9. In this case the complainants were using the facilities of the opposite party by paying Rs.30,000/-, there is no dispute about it. In that regard of using the club facility for 30,000/- rupees there is no deficiency in service. It is only up-gradation of membership by paying Rs.60,000/- and not providing facility as agreed it certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.60,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 07.10.2008 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.
4. The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14th Day of September 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
