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/09/1797
Sri . V.P. Vishwanat.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th OCTOBER 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.1791, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1799 & 1809/2009 COMPLAINT NO. 1791/09 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY COMPLAINT NO. 1796/09 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY COMPLAINT NO. 1797/09 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1798/09 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 1799/09 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY COMPLAINT NO. 1809/09 COMPLAINANT Anant Avasthi, Office Address, Quintiles Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Brigade South Parade, Third Floor, Bangalore 560 001. V/s. Country Club India Ltd., 675, 9th A Main, Indiranagar, 1st Stage, Bangalore 560 038. Sri. B.Shankarappa, S/o Late V.N.Basavaraju, Aged about 40 years, No.101, Obalappa Street, Chikkamavalli, Near Lalbagh West Gate, Bangalore 560 004. Advocate: Sri. M.Raja V/s. The Manager, Country Condons Ltd., (Formerly known as Neocure Therapeutics Ltd.,) No.478, Maha Padma, 1st Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. Sri. V.P. Viswanath, S/o K. Prabhakar, Aged about 36 years, Profession IBM Employee, Resident of No.9, Yellappa Street, Chikkamavalli, Lalbagh West Gate, Bangalore 560 004. Sri. Y.R.Gautam Kumar, S/o Y.R.Mohan Kumar, Aged about 29 years, Profession IBM Employee, Resident of No.291, 11th Cross, 29th Main, J.P.Nagar, 1st Phase, Bangalore 560 078. Advocate: Sri. N.Savanur Sri. M.K.AswathaNarayanaSetty, S/o Meda Keshavaiah, Aged about 34 years, Profession IBM Employee, Resident of No.77, Shekar Reddy Building, 10th Cross, 30th Main, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore 560 078. Advocate: Sri. N.Savanur V/s The Country Club (India) Limited, # 675, 9th A Main, 1st Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. Rep: by its Manager. Sri. Mohamed Zubair Qureshi, S/o Abdul Raheem Qureshi, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No.3-4, Church Complex, Ranoji Rao Raod, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. Advocate: Sri. S.A.Sami V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Country Club, Having its Administrative Office at No.273, 1st Main, Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. 2. The Country Club, Having its registered office at Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp: Secretariat, Hyderabad 560 063. Advocate: Sri S.M. Manjunatha O R D E R SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the complainants seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) for refund of amounts paid towards membership fees along with compensation, interest and costs on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs in all the above complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasonings, the above cases are stand 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. Complainants being attracted with the offers made by the representatives of the OPs, thought of becoming the members of the OPs club under various schemes. OPs accepted their membership and collected amount towards membership fees, registration and developments fees. OPs promised so many attractive offers like free stay for 6 nights and 7 days at Goa, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay, a compliments site measuring 1089 sq feet, free holiday package for 5 days, discounts on room tariffs at various hotels in India and abroad, 30% discount on food and beverages, free passes for mega shows, free value cards of discounted vouchers at shopping malls etc., But thereafter some how OPs failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of their, complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. For the convenience sake; the card membership, amount paid, membership number, date of notice, noted below in the chart. When the repeated requests and demands made by the complainants have gone in vain they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly. Sl. No. Complaint No. Card member ship Member ship No. Receipt No. and Date Amount Paid Notice date 1 1791/09 Mr. Kool life Kool 5146 16050 03.01.09 16057 31.12.08 Rs.15,000 Rs.25,000 Rs.40,000 23.03.09 2 1796/09 Mr. Cool Card Kool 2566 16456 23.01.08 223981 31.01.08 79319 23.02.08 79384 26.02.08 79401 27.02.08 78856 23.01.08 78855 23.01.08 Rs.15,000 Rs.30,000 Rs.20,000 Rs.10,000 Rs.10,000 Rs.35,000 Rs.25,000 Rs.1,45,000 22.06.09 3 1797/09 Mr. Cool Card Kool CG 2393 10781 21.04.06 10782 21.04.06 10989 25.01.06 10990 24.04.06 10991 25.04.06 1126 10.07.06 Rs.25,000 Rs.15,000 Rs.15,000 Rs.10,000 Rs.50,000 Rs.15,000 Rs.1,30,000 4 1798/09 Mr. Cool Privilege Cool CG 5713 25409 20.12.06 25410 20.12.06 Rs.55,000 Rs.60,000 Rs.1,15,000 5 1799/09 Mr. Cool Privilege Cool CG 7203 26313 26.12.06 26314 26.12.06 Rs.10,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs.15,000 6 1809/09 Mr. Cool Privilege Cool CG 2849 13601 15.06.06 13715 16.06.06 Rs.20,000 Rs.20,000 Rs.40,000 3. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence setout in all the complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments made in the version are as under: According to OP this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain these complaints; since OPs reserves the right only to the courts in Secunderabad and Hyderabad as mentioned in the application form. The club membership fees paid by each one of these complainants are non-refundable. It is further contended that OPs are ready to execute the sale deed with respect to complimentary sites in favour of the complainants as soon as complainants pay the registration and other miscellaneous charges as required. Registration charges to be paid within 30 days from the date of allotment. OP has registered more than 12,000 sites to its members in various layouts. Public notice published in DNA daily news paper is produced. Complainants failed to co-ordinate with the OPs. The OPs are not involved in real estate business. Complainants registered for club facilities and not for purchasing sites. Each one of these complainants extensively used the club facilities. The other allegations made by the complainants are all false and frivolous. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OPs are not liable to pay the compensation nor obliged to refund the fees. Among these grounds, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaints. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. Then the arguments were heard. 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the relief now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: 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 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants became the members of the OPs scheme as noted in the chart. The OPs accepted their membership and allotted certain number. It is also not at dispute that OPs accepted the membership fees as well as service charges as noted in the chart from all these complainants. Now the main grievance of these complainants is that though OPs collected the membership fees failed to provide the facilities offered and to allot and register the complimentary sites in their favour as promised. 8. According to complainants OP promised them to allot complimentary sites only on payment of full membership fees. Complainants with a sole intention of getting the complimentary sites immediately arranged for the said amount and paid to OPs. The receipts issued by the OPs are produced. Inspite of repeated requests and even after service of demand notice; OPs failed to fulfill its promises and to extend the services offered. Both oral and documentary evidence produced by these complainants support their cases. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. 9. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants the defence of the OP that whatever club membership fees paid is non-refundable has no basis. It is further contended by the OP that even now they are ready to execute the sale deed with respect to complimentary sites, if complainants pay required registration fee and stamp duty. But there is no basis for this defence, OPs have not produced any documents to show that layout has been formed, required sanction has been obtained from statutory authorities and sites are readily available in its disposable free from all encumbrances as on today. Hence the version of the OPs cannot be accepted. 10. In complaint No.1809/09 complainant produced receipts for Rs.40,000/- only. OP in its version admits that complainant paid Rs.1,15,000/- towards membership fees. Admitted facts need not be proved. Hence complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest. 11. Though OPs received such a huge amount from these complainants but failed to allot and register the complimentary sites as promised, thereby accrued wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to these complainants that too for no fault of their. The approach of the OPs does not appear to be fair and honest. By making false promises OPs rather forced the complainants to invest their hard earned money. After receipt of the money they failed to keep up their promise and opted to the hostile attitude. Complainants availed the club facilities hence they are not entitled for compensation. Hence we are satisfied that complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Under these circumstances complainants are entitled for certain reliefs. In our view justice will be met by directing the OPs to refund. Whatever the amount it has received from these complainants towards membership fees along with interest and litigation cost. With these observations we answer point No.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints are allowed in part. 1. In complaint No.1791/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 01.01.2009 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 2. In complaint No.1796/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 01.03.2008 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 3. In complaint No.1797/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 11.07.2006 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 4. In complaint No.1798/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 01.01.2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 5. In complaint No.1799/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 01.01.2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 6. In complaint No.1809/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 01.07.2006 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. 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.1791/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files. (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 30th day of October 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Snm:
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
