COMPLAINT FILED ON: 20.12.2010

DISPOSED ON: 31.10.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

^{31st  OCTOBER 2011}

  PRESENT :-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                             PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA                 MEMBER                   

                     SRI.M.MUNIYAPPA                          MEMBER

COMPLAINT NOs.   2962/2010 & 2963/2010   

COMPLAINT NO. 2962/2010              S.JAYARAM,

COMPLAINANTS                                        S/o Sudharshanacharya,

                                                                   Aged about 50 years,

                                                                   R/at No.120/37,

                                                                   R.N.Enterprises,

                                                                   4^th Cross,

Kasthuri Extension,

                                                                   Peenya II stage,

                                                                   Bangalore – 560 091.

COMPLAINT NO. 2963/2010              Sri.Venkatesh,

COMPLAINANTS                                        S/o Ramaiah,

                                                                   Aged about 46 years,

                                                                   R/at No.178, 7^th Cross,

                                                                   Srigandhanagar,

                                                                   Hegganahalli East.

                                                                   Near RTG school,

                                                                   Vishwaneedam post,

                                                                   Bangalore – 560 091.

(Adv: H.C.Ramaswamy)

 V/s.

OPPOSITE PARTYS                             The Manager,

M/s Country Club

 (India) Ltd.,

No.675, 9^th ‘A’ Main,

Indiranagar I Stage,

Bangalore – 560038.

 ( Adv: G.A.GOPI)           

C O M M O N  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 respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amount paid towards membership fees along with interest at 24% p.a. and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

As the OP in both the complaints is common, the questions involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order.

The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under;

2.           Complainants being attracted by the offer  made by O.P. thought of becoming the member of the O.P’s Club. O.P. accepted the membership of the each complainant and collected the amount towards membership fee. Each Complainant paid the amounts to O.P.  on various dates starting from 23-3-2006 to 24-5-2007 as shown in the table below.  O.P. offerred to allot a site measuring 1089 Sq.ft. at Coconut Grove, Tumkur District. As per the assurance O.P. failed to allot the site. In Complaint No. 2962/2010.  O.P. offered site No.243 and 244 in Coconut Grove, Phase VI, by its  allotment letters dated 9-3-2007 and 10-3-2007 and conformation letter for Coconut grove phase X, Site No.33 & 34.  As per the assurance O.P. failed to allot the site or to refund the amount paid.  O.P. refused to refund the amount.  Complainant got issued legal notice calling upon O.P. to refund amount along with interest.  Inspite of service of notice, there was no response of O.P. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against O.P. under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints for the necessary reliefs.  For the convenience sake the card membership No., amount paid, receipt No., date of receipts, date of legal notice are noted below in the chart. 

3.      On appearance OP filed the version. The defence set out in both the complainant is almost identical and same. The brief averments made in the version are as under.

According to OP  in C.No.2962/2010 O.P. has already issued allotment letter in favour of complainant allotting a complimentary plot bearing No.34 towards his membership and  plot No.33 under MGM Scheme, Phase X, Coconut grove, infavour of the complainant.  In  the said allotment letter O.P. has requested the complainant to deposited registration and maintenance charges.  Complainant has deposited the said registration charges.  Inspite of repeated requests, and reminders complainant has not come forward for registration.  In C.No.2963/2010 O.P. admits payment of 35000/- towards membership fee of COOL CG 452-A Scheme.  Complainant sought for degradation of membership to millennium membership scheme, stating he has financial problem.  As per the request of complainant O.P. shifted membership of the complainant to millennium scheme.  Now complainant cannot once again seek for refund of the membership fee.  Under the millennium scheme complainant is not entitled for any complimentary plot nor or the same was offered by O.P.  Complainant suppressing the fact of degradation filed the present complaint. In C.No.2962/2010 O.P. is ready to register the  complimentary plot at XV extenstion, Rathnasandra village, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District., Copy of the plans and conversion order are produced by O.P.  Membership fee paid by the complainant is non refundable.  O.P. admits receipt of membership fee.  Complainants have not paid any consideration, hence complainants are not consumers.  Among other   grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

4.      To substantiate the complaint averments each complainant filed their respective affidavit evidence and produced the welcome letter, letter of allotment dated 7-3-2007, & 10-3-2007, allotment letter dated nil. Receipts, correspondences, copy of legal notice, postal acknowledgement.  On behalf of OP Venkatesh Verma C. Asst. Administration Manager, filed his affidavit evidence in support of the defence version. In C.No.2962/2010 O.P. has produced copy of the membership application form, copy of the sanction plan and conversion order. In C.No.2963/2010 O.P. has not produced any documents. Heard arguments from complainants side and taken as heard from O.P. side.

5.      In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises 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 OP?

Point No.2:-  If so, whether the complainants are

                    entitled for the reliefs now claimed?

      Point No.3:-  To what Order?

6.      Our findings on the above points are: 

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 in dispute that each complainant became the member of the O.P’s scheme as noted in the chart.  The O.P. accepted the membership of each complainant and issued the membership card as shown in the chart.  O.P. has offered to allot a complimentary plot measuring 1089 Sq.ft. at coconut grove at the time of complainants becoming the members of O.P. club.  Now the main grievances of these complainants are that though O.P. collected the membership fees in the year 2006-2007, but failed to provide the facilities offered to allot and register the complimentary sites in their favour as promised.  Hence they approached this forum for the necessary relief.  

8.      As against the case of the complainant the defence of the O.P.  is that in Complaint No.2962/2010 it has already issued allotment letter infavour of complainant allotting complimentary sites bearing No.34 towards the membership of the complainant and plot No.33 under MGM Scheme situated at Phase X, Coconut Grove infavour of complainant. Complainant has deposited the registration and maintenance charges. In spite of repeated requests and reminders the complainant has not come forward for the registration. In the absence of any materials we are unable to accept the defence of the Op that complainant has not come forward for the registration. Op has failed to produce any correspondence or letters sent to the complainant requesting complainant to come for registration. On the other hand complainant has produced the letter dt.22.09.2009 addressed to Op and notice dt.30.06.2010. In spite of service of letter and legal notice OP has failed to respond to the complainant. Further it is contended by OP that it is ready to register a complimentary plot at Phase XV extension. Rathnasandra Village, Sira Taluk. Tumkr Distrct. In support of its defence OP has produced copy of the proposed layout plan and conversion order in respect of Sy.No.158/1A2., Phase XV. Rathnasandra Village, Sira Taluk, Tumkur district. We have perused the same. It is only a proposed layout plan standing in the name of one Mr.Tataji Margani, not in the name of OP. Conversion order also does not stands in the name of op. Therefore the said documents are not helpful in support of the defence version of OP.

9.      In C.C.No.2963/2010. OP admits receipt of amount of Rs.35,000/- towards membership fees. The main defence of Op is under Millenium Scheme complainant is not entitle for any complimentary plot and same was not offered by OP. We are unable to accept this defence of OP. The document No.3 produced by the complainant dated. Nil, in the said letter OP has stated that OP is happy to announce that complainant is being allotted a complimentary free sites and complainant is getting Rs.2,178 Sq.ft of land free at coconut grove, Tumkur. On the other hand O.P. has failed to produce any materials to show that it has provided all the facilities, offered to the complainant.

10.    OP has not produced any documents to show that the layout has been formed and sanction plan has been obtained from statutory authorities.  Hence it becomes clear that O.P. has failed to provide the facilities as assured at the time of each complainants becoming members of the O.P. club. Though O.P. has received the registration charges of Rs.35,000/- on 25/4/2007 itself and membership fees in the year 2006 itself failed to respond to the letter of complainant dated 22/9/2009 and legal notice.  Further O.P. failed to refund the amount inspite of repeated requests and inspite of service of legal notice we are satisfied that each complainant  are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of O.P.  Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that each complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid along with interest at 12% p.a. as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R