Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/2010/25

Sudhanshu Shekar Singh S/o Sattrughan Singh, Aged About 32 Years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sales and Marketing, Country Club (India) ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Smt M.Mamatha

31 May 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624
No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2010/25

Sudhanshu Shekar Singh S/o Sattrughan Singh, Aged About 32 Years
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager, Sales and Marketing, Country Club (India) ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(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

O R D E R SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Op is that he agreed to become a member of the Op club influenced by him approached the executive of the Op. That he accordingly became a cool card member bearing No.COOLCG5511 by paying membership fee of Rs.66,000/-. That the Op offered to allot one residential site measuring 1089 sq. ft. at Coconut Grove and a complementary plot measuring 1089 sq. ft under Cool Card scheme. That he paid the entire membership fee on 12/12/2006 and 20/12/2006. The Op had issued receipt for the same. Thereafter despite lapse of more than two years and approach the Ops have failed to allot free plots. That he requested Op to refund the membership fees on 11/08/2009, but Op did not refund the amount. Thereby complainant approached the forum to seek relief and has prayed for a direction to the Op to refund the membership fee paid to Op with interest of 18% and to award compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version. Op in his version has contended that the complaint is not maintainable and denied deficiency in his service. Op has admitted that the complainant has become a member of that club called cool life membership by paying non-refundable membership fee. It is further admitted that along with membership fee they have offered free sites as complement to the membership taken and was gift to the members. That the complainant did not get the sites registered. That they have offered to execute registered deeds and even issued a letter stating that within 30 days from receipt of the letter the registration can be done. But complainant not shown interest to register it and thereby has prayed fro dismissal of the complaint. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Op has filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced the offer letter of the Op, copy of the receipt for having paid membership fee, copy of the request made before Op regarding refund of his amount. Counsel for complainant argued, counsel for op remained absent, taken as heard and perused the records. On the above materials, following points for determination arise. 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service in not allotting sites and executing title deeds in respect of two free sites offered? 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to? Point No.1 : In the affirmative Point No.2 : See the final order. Answer on point No.1: As we have gone through the contention of rival parties, there is no dispute between them, in this complainant having had become a cool card member card bearing No.COOL CG 5511 by paying Rs.66,000/- as membership fee and that the Op has offered one free plot measuring 1089 sq. ft. at Country Club Coconut Grove and another site as an extra plot as complementary measuring 1089 sq. ft. besides other facilities offered by the Ops. As these facts are not disputed, the only dispute between the parties remains for decision is regarding non-allotment of two free plots as promised. It is the grievance of the complainant that despite he approaching the Op several times, Op did not allot free sites as promised. Complainant has asked in his prayer for refund of his membership fee on the ground that he cannot trust the Op and do not wish to continue his relationship with them. But the Op as stated above have not controverted the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and dissatisfaction he has expressed. On considering all these facts placed before us, we find that there is nothing wrong in this complainant asking for the relief of refund of membership fee because of no response or due to lack sincerity on the Op, we also find there is no genuinity in allotment also. As seen from the allotment letter of the Op dated 18/07/2007 which Op has produced along with proposed layout plan on the date of argument, the Op has offered one free plot of 1633 sq.ft in phase XVI-site No.145, that will be allotted at country club coconut grove. Op requested complainant to pay Rs.20,000/- towards site confirmation and administrative charges including stamp fees and registration expenses and also mentioned that the allotment letter is valid for a period of 30 days from the date of the said letter. OP contended that though the allotment letter sent to register the site complainant did not come forward to do so and Op also submitted that he is ready to register even now. If we carefully look at this offer, the offer in our view appears to be an uncertain and non-existing because it is not clear where exactly that coconut grove of Halenahalli Village exists and Op’s layout situated in which survey numbers they have formed sites and its location. Even we cannot find any site No. of 145 in the proposed layout plan which Op has produced. In this way, it is found that the Op has offered such type of free plots to attract the people to become their members by paying heavy amount. Similarly the offers made in this case also exhibit uncertainty. It is found that the complainant became a member on 20/12/2006 he has repeatedly stated that despite approaching the Op they did not allot plots. Op has neither register the site nor refunded his amount. If the contention of the Op that they offered to execute deeds is really genuine and they had intention to allot sites they could have first allotted free plots to the complainant showing the plots numbers location etc., and then tell the complainant to get documents registered by meeting registration expenditure but it is evident that the Op has not even come forward to prove that they have formed any layout. Though the developments that have taken place in this case, we are of the view, the claim of the opponent do not inspire confidence in us and also in the complainant. Therefore under those circumstances complainant opted for taking back his membership fee which cannot be denied. The Ops have contended that membership fee is not refundable. But it is not their case that the complainant after becoming a member has used any sort of their service like club service and other facilities offered through their offering letter. Therefore, when the complainant has absolutely not availed any service of the Op and Op has not exhibited his sincerity in showing some progress in the formation of layout and allotment of plots, they cannot retain complainant’s money. Hence, complaint in our view is entitled for the relief we are going to grant. With the result, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is allowed. Op is directed to refund Rs.66,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of deposit to till it is repaid. Op shall refund that amount within 45 days from the date of this order. Op shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 31st May 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT




......................Anita Shivakumar. K
......................Ganganarsaiah
......................Sri D.Krishnappa