Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/544/2012

Stalin Stephen - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s. Chennai Corporate Club & 2 ors - Opp.Party(s)

Shalom Associates

15 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

                  Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                                   Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 544 of 2012

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.206/2010 dated 04.07.2012 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Chennai (South).

 

Tuesday, the 15^th day of March 2022

 

Stalin Stephen

S/o. D. Stephen

A-6, Shanthi The Empress

No.165, L.B. Street

Tiruvanmiyur,Chennai- 600 041.

Now at

No.40-B, 2^nd Floor,

Second Main Road

LIC Nagar, Madipakkam

Chennai – 600 091.                                         .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

1.  The Managing Director

     M/s. Chennai Corporate Club

     No.3, IV & V Floor

     City Centre Plaza

     Opp. To Anna Statue

     Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

 

2.  The Project Manager

     M/s. Chennai Corporate Club

     No.3, IV & V Floor

     City Centre Plaza

     Opp. To Anna Statue

     Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

 

 

3.  The Legal Advisor

     M/s. Chennai Corporate Club

     No.3, IV & V Floor

     City Centre Plaza

     Opp. To Anna Statue

     Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.                 .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

   

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant                       : M/s. Shalom Associates

    Counsel for the 1^st Respondent /1^st Opposite Party : M/s. A. Ilangovan

    Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent /2^nd Opposite Party : M/s.N.S.Manoharan

No representation

     3^rd Respondent/ 3^rd Opposite Party :  Called Absent

                                                                            

 

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 01.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and the respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 15 and 17 (A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.07.2012 made in C.C. No.206 of 2010 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

 

 

2.   The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that he is a Graduate Engineer.  The Opposite Parties are jointly and collectively administering the Chennai Corporate Club.  The opposite parties approached him and showed various brochures, pamphlets, handbills and enticed him to become a member of Chennai Corporate Club to enjoy various benefits like certain holiday Resorts and stay.  They came forward to offer two house plots, each measuring 2400 sq.ft., totalling to an extent of 4800 sq.ft. at Corporate Nagar, Pudur Project-III.   The opposite parties also showed a plan to the complainant stating that the same was approved and undertook to allot, execute and register sale deeds for Plot Nos. 284 and 285 measuring an extent of 4800 sq.ft.at Corporate Nagar, Pudur Project –III and wanted him to invest and enjoy all the benefits.  The complainant borrowed loan from HDFC Bank at 18% interest and paid the cost of the plots namely Rs.2,90,000/- to the opposite parties including registration charges.  The opposite parties undertook to register the sale deeds to plot Nos. 284 and 285, Pudur, Project-III in favour of the complainant.  The opposite parties despite receiving the cost of the plots delayed in execution and registering of the sale deeds.  As the opposite parties failed to keep up the promise, the complainant came to Chennai from Bombay, where he was working, on three occasions, spending huge sum of money towards flight charges and allied expenditures apart from loss of pay to urge the opposite parties to execute and register the sale deeds of the house plots.  But the opposite parties did not comply with the undertaking given by them, even after the personal visit of the complainant repeatedly.  Therefore, the complainant was constrained to issue a suit notice on 04.04.2009 calling upon the opposite parties to execute and register sale deeds for the house plots No.284 and 285 Corporate Nagar, Pudur Project III or to refund the cost of the land paid by the complainant together with 24% interest.  Whileso, the opposite parties sent two gift deeds for plot Nos. 210 and 211 of Pudur Village, registered in favour of the complaint, which is contrary to the undertaking given by the opposite parties that they would execute and register sale deeds for plot Nos. 284 and 285.  The complainant was later given to understand that the plan showed by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of registration was not an approved one but a forged, as the plot Nos.284 and 285 were then not in existence in the revised plan.  The Plot Nos. 210 and 211 are in the remote corner of the project, not accessible and has a very low value.  The Plot Nos. 284 and 285 shown to the complainant, are in prime location and has high value.  Therefore, the action of the opposite parties constitutes not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice. Duping the customers by showing unapproved plan as approved one, undertaking to allot plots in prime location but allotting the plots in remote corner and sending gift deeds to the counsel instead of executing and registering sale deeds in respect of the plots allotted as undertaken by the opposite parties, amount to unfair trade practice.  The opposite parties were also reluctant to refund the cost of the plots Rs.2,90,000/- when the complainant was unwilling to accept the gift deed sent by them.  The opposite parties sent a reply on 04.05.2009 for the suit notice of the complainant, refuting the allegations in toto.  The complainant through his Power Agent gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Triplicane, to take penal action against the Corporate Club and its officials, who were involved in defrauding the complainant to part away with huge sum of Rs.2,90,000/- which was paid by borrowing loan for interest from the Bank, apart from causing monetary loss to the Government by avoiding payment of stamp duty in selling the plots but by way of executing the gift deeds to its members.  The Complainant’s Power Agent addressed a letter on 30.01.2010 requesting the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,90,000/-, namely, the cost of the plots which is required urgently to meet the medical expenses of the Power Agent, who is the father of the complainant.  Even after a lapse of three months, the opposite parties failed to settle the transaction despite repeated requests by the complainant and direction by the Triplicane police.  Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant has come forward with this complaint for the following reliefs:-

1. to direct the opposite parties to pay, jointly and severely, Rs.2,90,000/- the cost of the land together with 24% interest amounting to Rs.4,29,200/-.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and untold sufferings undergone by the complainant.
3. To pay the cost of litigation and incidental charges amounting to Rs.75,000/- on the aggregate to pay a sum of Rs.6,04,200/-.

 

3.   The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a version stating that the first opposite party is a Recreation Club.  Under promotional scheme conceived by the first opposite party the Elite members were offered housing sites of an extent of 4800 sq.ft., as a compliment.   Accordingly, when the complainant became a member, on payment of membership fee of Rs.2,50,000/-, [Rs.2,70,000 less discount of Rs.20,000/- vide complainant’s letter dt. 24.12.2008] the opposite parties assured him of allotment of 4800 sq.ft. of land by M/s.Abinaya Constructions, an associate of the first opposite party.  The plots offered were complimentary and so the complainant has no choice of plot and he agreed to accept the allotment of land at the sole discretion of M/s.Abinaya Constructions.  The opposite parties never showed any plan to the complainant and never undertook to execute sale deeds for Plot Nos.284 and 285 or any other specific plots.  On payment of the registration and other incidental charges by the complainant, M/s.Abinaya Constructions executed and registered two gift deeds dated 13.02.2009 for Plot No.210 and 211 of an extent of 2763 sq.ft. and 2126 sq.ft., in favour of the complainant vide Document No.1076 and 1077 of 2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kaveripakkam.  The complainant who was in Bombay then, did not collect the documents. It is not true to say that the opposite parties delayed the execution of the sale deeds.  The complainant never met the opposite parties after execution of the gift deeds.  The police complaint preferred by the complainant was closed on representation of true facts and on production of copies of gift deeds.  Hence, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

 

4.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant along with proof affidavit, 10 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.  On the side of the opposite parties 1 document was filed and the same was marked as Ex.B1, along with proof affidavit.

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the evidence and records, dismissed the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. In this Appeal, two additional documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A11 and Ex.A12. 

 

6.   Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Respondents have not only induced the complainant to become a member of Chennai Corporate Club but have also wrongly represented by showing a forged plan as approved one, to part away with a huge sum of Rs.2,90,000/- stating that they would execute and register sale deeds in respect of Plot Nos.284 and 285 measuring to an extent of 4800 sq.ft. at Corporate Nagar, Pudur Project III.  Believing their words the Complainant also borrowed a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as loan from HDFC Bank and paid the cost to the opposite parties.  But, thereafter the opposite parties delayed execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of Plot Nos. 284 and 285.  Only after issuance of a suit notice, the opposite parties sent two gift deeds to the counsel for the complainant, for plot Nos. 210 and 211, which are situated in the remote corner and has no access.  For the purpose of purchasing the land, the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- for an interest of 18% from HDFC Bank.  Therefore, he has to now repay the loan amount, which had caused mental agony and untold sufferings to the complainant.  Thus, the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Without considering all these aspects, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.  Aggrieved by the same, the complaint has filed this Appeal.

 

7.  Countering the same, counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the Respondent is a Recreation Club.  The membership fee for the Club was Rs.2,70,000/-.  As a promotional scheme the first opposite party offered house plots to an extent of 4800 sq.ft. for elite members, as a compliment.  The appellant, for his eligibility, was assured with house plots for an extent of 4800 sq.ft., as a compliment, under Ex.A1.  Provisionally Plot Nos.284 and 285 was referred.  But, the appellant was neither given a choice nor he exercised his choice, to choose the plots.  As the Plot Nos.280 to 286 in the rough sketch were found to be trenches, they were deleted and gift deeds were executed in favour of the appellant, with Plot Nos. 210 and 211 under Ex.A3.  Not agreeing for the same, the complainant issued legal notice under Ex.A4. The Respondents also had sent a suitable reply in Ex.A5.  The transaction is one of membership fee for Recreation Club, run by the first respondent.  The house plots were offered as compliment for Elite membership, on payment of prescribed fee.  The District Forum had formulated two points for consideration i.e. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? and To what relief the complainant is entitled to ? After going through the various documents had rendered a clear cut finding that the appellant had failed to produce any evidence to show that the amount paid is towards sale consideration and not for membership.  It has also given a specific finding that the respondents have honoured the commitment, after the complainant had become a member of the first respondent, for the assurance of a complimentary house site.  Thus, the Forum has come to the conclusion that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Such a well finding need not be interfered with. 

 

 

8.   Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the material available on record.  The only question that falls for consideration is whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in allotting plot Nos. 210 and 211.  If that question is decided, that would suffice to dispose of this appeal. 

 

9.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties had approached him, to become a member in their Recreation Club, with the promotional scheme of offering two house plots, each measuring 2400 sq.ft., totaling 4800 sq.ft., at Pudur, Project III.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- towards the cost of the plots.  They undertook to register the plots No.284 and 285 by letter dated 15.05.2008.  But, later instead of registering sale deeds in respect of Plot Nos. 284 and 285, on 13.02.2009 they executed two gift deeds allotting plot Nos. 210 and 211 in favour of the complainant, which is contrary to the undertaking given by the opposite parties, to execute and register sale deeds for plot Nos.284 and 285 in Corporate Nagar, Pudur Project III.  But, it is the contention of the counsel for the opposite parties that a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- paid by the complainant is only a membership fee.  The first opposite party offered two house plots, each measuring 2400 sq.ft., for the Elite Members, only as a compliment.  The opposite parties had never stated that they would execute sale deed in favour of the complainant.  The fact that they have executed a gift deed in favour of the complainant would show that it is only a promotional scheme.  The respondents had stated that two plots measuring 2400 sq.ft. each, would be conveyed to him.  On perusal of the records, we find that as per the assurance given by the opposite parties, they have conveyed two plots, namely, plot No. 210 and 211, measuring an extent of 2763 sq.ft. & 2126 sq.ft., respectively.  Therefore, absolutely there is no unfair trade practice.  Further, no documents have been produced on the side of the complainant to show that the opposite parties had agreed to execute sale deeds in favour of the complainant. Similarly, he has also not produced any documents that a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- paid by him is towards sale consideration.  On the contrary, the gift deeds executed by the opposite parties would clearly show that these plots were allotted to the complainant only as complimentary.  The sum of Rs.2,90,000/- paid by the complainant is only towards the club membership fee.  When it is complimentary, the question of filing a complaint under the Consumer Act, will not arise, since the complainant has not paid any sale consideration. 

 

10.   Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and hence the order dated 04.07.2012 made in C.C. No.206 of 2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is confirmed.  Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.  

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT