Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/429/2015

R.Muthu Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Country Vocation Club - Opp.Party(s)

M.Deva Prabu

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :15.10.2015

Date of Reservation      :26.09.2022

Date of Order               :28.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                        : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,        :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,  : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 429/2015

FRIDAY, THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

R.Muthu Krishnan,

S/o,Mr.P.Raju,

No.9, 2^nd floor,S-6,

Four square Apartments,

Kannadasan street, J.V.Nagar,

Madipakkam,

Chennai -91.                                                                      …  Complainant

 

-Vs-

 

The Manager,

Country Vocation Club,

No, 4/22, Ramakrishnan Street,

North Usman Road,

T.Nagar,

Near Croma showroom,

Chennai -17.                                                                ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant        :    M/s.M. Deva Prabhu

Counsel for the Opposite Party     :    M/s. V.T. Narendiran

 

        On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru.T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The Complainant is working as a Assistant Manager in Tata Teleservices Ltd., Chennai. The Opposite Party had approached him for applying Club Member ship in the Country Vocation club at Chennai for premium membership, for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-assuring to register half ground of land excluding the registration costs, of which he had submitted all the necessary documents as requested by the Opposite Party. His membership card bearing Membership No: DT:102 239 was issued after entering into membership agreement with the Opposite Party on 07.08.2010, that too as when he made repeated reminders and there after the opposite never registered the land in his name, in spite of his requests and reminders to register the land for which the Opposite Party had entered in to agreement with him in the year 2010 to till date but the days and years were passed but the registration was not done and they made the Complainant to run from pillar to post which makes him to put under stress strain and mental agony which cannot be compensated on any means. The Opposite Party asked him to pay an additional amount of amount of Rs 15,000/- for the additional registration cost for the land and as per the request of the Opposite Party he had paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- for the land registration along with additional amount of Rs.10,000/-for Holidays Tour Packages but the same was not provided and arranged by the Opposite Party but simply they refused whenever he had asked for the National and International tour Packages, then the Opposite Party said that they will register the land on the next week. Though one week had passed but the opposite never registered the land on the Complainant name, to his shock and surprise till date the land was not registered in his name as assured, then finally he had sent a mail to the Opposite Party on 26.08.2015 to Mr.Suresh, Mrs.Asha and Mr.Byreddy who are all the staff, asking the Opposite Party to register the land in his name. But the Opposite Party delayed in doing the land registration in his  name this shows the wrongful act, delay and deficiency of services and negligence act done by the Opposite Party/ Country vocation club. He had approached the Opposite Party office on various occasion and finally on 11.07.2015 and met the staff Mr.Suresh who is working as a customer care officer had again received all the set of documents from him for registering the land but all the efforts went on vain. Hence he was put under severe loss, damages, mental agony, tension, stress and strain etc,. He had paid a total amount of Rs. 1,35,000/-to the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3.   Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

         The Complainant does not make out a consumer case (or) is the cause as action made out for deficiency of service. Infact the non -inclusion of the other co signatory of the agreement i.e.,Mrs Alima Beevi, is fatal to the case and for this reason alone the complaint has to be dismissed for non-inclusion of necessary parties. The cause of action for the above complaint arises in the year 2010 itself as per the pleading and hence this complaint filed in 2015 is hopelessly beyond limitation and hence deserves to be dismissed and mere correspondence would not extend the limitation. The very complaint cause of action between the vacation agreement between the Complainant and another and land purchase agreement between the Complainant, this Opposite Party and another person who is the seller has being two different cause of action has been wrongly filed as one complaint and this Complainant has to be dismissed for wrong cause of action also. The very description /cause title of the Opposite Party is wrong and there is no such club ie "Country vocation club" in the address mentioned and hence the Opposite Party being wrongly named/described the complaint deserves to be dismissed for erroneous description of party, more so when the Opposite Party name has been properly described in the agreements entered into between the Complainant. The 1^stagreement dated 07.08.2010 between the Country vacation a division of Country club of India limited and the Opposite Party for availing holidays in the resorts for the year 2010- 2015 another separate agreement is an agreement for sale dated 07-08-2010 between the Country club of India Ltd Complaint for allotment of plot in vathalakundu, Nilakottai District and hence two different agreement for two different purpose. The 2^nd agreement for Sale dated 07-08-2010 between the Country club of India Ltd Complaint for allotment of plot in vathalakundu, Nilakottai District one Mr.Pavan is the seller and without including him the very complaint is misconceived. The refund of membership fee is not maintainable as clearly stated in the written agreement in clauses No.3,11 entered into and signed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party, wherein it is clearly stated that the membership fee is not a deposit and the fee paid is non-refundable. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The Complainants had paid for and became a member on 2010 and the Opposite Party membership card was issued on 07.08.2010 and also membership Number: DT102/239 already issued and the consumer complaint is maintainable within Two Years only and membership was done in the club.No deficiency of service is made out and the Complainant is trying to cloak his claim for refund by making a false claim for consumer deficiency and the refund of amount in the said complaint therefore complaint is not maintainable. The Complainant has no equity on his side for he has not made payment of AMC Annual Maintenance charges of Rs 6,000/- per year for all 5 years to the opposite parties totaling to Rs 30,000/- in five years, hence he is a defaulter and not a consumer and his complaint has to be dismissed, hence they are willing to provide the facilities as the Complainant is entitled as per the agreement and the amount paid by the Complainant is not refundable, therefore the question refund of amount (or) claim of interest is totally unacceptable and the fact that the member ship fee is non-refundable is clearly stated as a condition in the agreement itself hence the Complainant having signed the agreement cannot plead otherwise or claim any relief contrary to the written agreement. The Opposite Party is ready and willing to provide the services as agreed and have been in touch with Complainant but all along who is interested in getting money back and this complaint for alleged deficiency in service is only a Modus operandi to money from the Opposite Party when they are not liable to pay. The Opposite Party denies that the complaint had sought to avail holidays and was not given all these are an afterthought to prop up his case, in fact he had not even paid his AMC for 5 years and the said allegations are an afterthought. The Opposite Party submits that the complaint has no legal or factual merit and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the legal notice was not addressed to Branch office and hence the non reply would not make out a case for Complainant. More over with regard to land the cause of action is not within the jurisdiction of  this Hon'ble Forum as  the  land  is  in  Dindugul

District. Hence in this complaint is not maintainable. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.    The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, no documents was marked.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether the Complaint is barred by Limitation?

2. Whether the Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary Party?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

5. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point Nos.1 to 3:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had entered into a Club Membership agreement on 07.08.2010 with the Opposite Party and had paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the Opposite Party.

The disputed facts are that the Complainant was approached by the Opposite Party with a promise to register a land at Dindugul District in his name and had entered into a Sale Agreement on 07.08.2010, and on the said promise he had paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards membership fees. The Opposite Party had failed to provide services under the Membership card issued to him when he had requested for the same and further had failed to register a land at Dindugul District as assured by the Opposite Party, in spite of receipt of the registration cost of Rs.25,000/- on 09.05.2011 and 05.08.2011. Hence the Opposite Party is liable to refund the membership fees and registration fees paid, apart from compensating for mental agony, stress, pain and damages.

The Contention of the Opposite Party was that the membership agreement and sale agreement would give different cause of action and further the complaint was not filed by the parties to the membership agreement, hence the complaint has to be dismissed for non-inclusion of necessary party. Further contended that the seller under the Sale Agreement was not included as necessary party to the proceedings. The Membership fees paid was non refundable and the same is not a deposit. Further contended that the Complainant had not approached them for availing any services during 2010-2015 for which the Membership card was issued. Further contended that as the agreements were entered in the year 2010 the complaint ought to have filed within 2 years and the disputes raised were not consumer dispute and there was no cause of action for the deficiency in service on their part, moreover with regard to registration of land the cause of action was not within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

On careful reading of the Complaint, exhibits marked in support of the complaint and the written version, it is clear that the Opposite Party had approached the Complainant for their Club membership with a promise and assurance to register a land situated at Vathalagondu Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindugul District, as evidenced from Ex.A-1 and A-2,International Club Membership Purchase Agreement dated 07.08.2010 and Sale Agreement dated 07.08.2010. The contention of the Opposite Party that the Complaint was not filed by the Parties to the Membership Agreement without including Aleema Beevi is not acceptable nor sustainable, as the receipts for the payments for a total sum of Rs.1,25,000/-has been issued in the name of the Complainant and non-inclusion of the other party would not defect the complaint in any manner. Further from perusal of Ex.A-2 the Sale Agreement dated 07.08.2010, it is clear that the Complainant, Mr.Muthukrishnan had agreed for club membership Agreement and immediately upon informing about the payment of entire amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the Opposite Party, the sale deed would be executed by the seller and further the Complainant had agreed to bear the registration cost of Rs.15,000/- towards registration of Land in his favour. As per Ex.A-4 the receipts issued by the Opposite Party for a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- would clearly prove that the membership fees so collected towards cost of the Land and registration fees. In spite of the same, till August, 2015 the Opposite Party had not registered the land in the name of the Complainant as assured for registration in the month of August,2013 under their mail dated 26.06.2013 found in Page No.28 of Ex.A-5, which is also evidenced by the mail communications marked as  Ex.A-5.The Layout of Land assured for registration in the name of the Complainant was marked as Ex.A-7.

On the discussions made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the contentions of the Opposite Party with regard to limitation as the agreements were entered in the year 2010 and the both the agreements were separate, the complaint filed in the year 2015 is clearly barred by limitation, is not legally sustainable, as the Opposite Party had approached the Complaint for club membership with a promise to register a land situated at Vathalgondu village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindugul District, in the name of the Complainant, as found Ex.A-2 was not registered till August, 2015 in spite of the assurance given by the Opposite Party for registration in the month of August,2013 under their mail dated 26.06.2013 found in Page No.28 of Ex.A-5, which is also evidenced by the mail communications marked as  Ex.A-5 and in spite of receipt of entire amount including registration fees as found in Ex.A-4. Hence the complaint filed is well within the Limitation period. 

Further, it is clear that the contentions of the Opposite Party with regard to non-inclusion of necessary Party either Aleema Beevi, 2^nd Purchaser to the Club Membership Purchase Agreement dated 07.08.2010 or the Seller of the Sale Agreement dated 07.08.2010, are not at all legally sustainable, when the payments were received and the receipts were issued in the name of the Complainant and the said Aleema Beevi was found to be the wife of the Complainant, as well as when the payment of entire amount of Rs.1,20,000/- received by the Opposite Party from the Complainant towards cost of the Land apart from the registration fees of Rs.15,000/- the responsibility is on the Opposite Party to inform the seller and to get the registration of land in the name of the Complainant and hence the non inclusion of the said persons who are not necessary parties to the above complaint.

It is also clear that the Opposite Party had approached the Complainant for their Club membership with a promise and assurance to register a land situated at Vathalagondu Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindugul District, as evidenced from Ex.A-1 and A-2, International Club Membership Purchase Agreement dated 07.08.2010 and Sale Agreement dated 07.08.2010. Though the Complainant had averred that the services requested by him was not provided, is not substantiated by any material evidence. Hence we hold that the Opposite Party by assuring the Complainant under the guise of registering a land in his name and had induced him to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in spite of receipt of the said sum the Opposite Party had failed to perform their part, which clearly amounts to Unfair trade practice. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed unfair trade practice and caused mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1,2 and 3 are answered.

 

Point Nos.4 and 5 :-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 to 3 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-  towards unfair trade practice and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.4 and 5 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) towards unfair trade practice and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 28^th of October 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	07.08.2010	Country vocation club Membership agreement
Ex.A2	07.08.2010	Country vocation club Land sale agreement
Ex.A3	-	Membership card/ID
Ex.A4	07.08.2010 09.05.2011 05.08.2011	Country vocation club payment Receipts:1669,1670,1671,2983,2583
Ex.A5	2010-2015	Email communications from 2010 to till date
Ex.A6	09.08.2010	Welcome letter given by Country vocation club
Ex.A7	-	Layout plan at Nilakottai Taluk for allotment, Documentation and Registration

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT