Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/590/2012

P.G. RAJENDRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MARKETING MANAGER,COUNTRY VACATIONS - Opp.Party(s)

P.G. RAJENDRAN

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE         HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                        THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                MEMBER

                               F.A.590/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.186/2010 dated 30.8.2012 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)]

Dated this the 11^th day of FEBRUARY 2015

Mr.P.G.Rajendran

G.2, Plot 30, Mahalakshmi Nagar

4^th Main Road

Adambakkam

Chennai 600 088                                       ..Appellant/complainant in person

                                              Vs

The Marketing Manager

Country Vacations

(A Division of Country Club (India) Ltd,

C/o Country club (India) Ltd

No.12,  3^rd Floor, “Vaibhav”Building

Smith Road, Chennai 600 002                 ..1^st Respondent/ 1^st opposite party  

 

The Manager – Credit cards

ABN AMRO – Bank N.V

2^nd Floor

T.V.H.BELICIAA Towers – II

MRC Nagar

Chennai 600 028                                    ..2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party

 

Counsel for Appellant/complainant in person   : M/s P.G.Rajendran in person

Counsel for Respondent 1 & 2                        : M/s V.T.Narendiran

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 26.11.2014  and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the  material records, this commission made the following order.

 

 

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in C.C 186/2010 dated 30.8.2012 dismissing the complaint.

 

2.        The case of the complainant is that he paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 20.4.2008 to the 1^st opposite party towards membership fee, but the 1^st opposite party has not issued membership identity card  which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

 

3.      According to the opposite parties, the complainant did not complete the formalities of giving the photographs etc., of the complainant, his wife and son and /I.D.proof and the complainant failed to collect the membership card from the 1^st opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

4.        The District Forum considering the rival contention dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

5.        Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

 

6.         It is first contended by the 1^st Respondent/1^st opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation. We find that the membership fee of Rs.35,000/- had been paid to the 1^st opposite party by the Appellant/complainant on 20.4.2008 as evidenced by  Ex.A.1 receipts dated 22.4.2008 and the complaint has been filed on 15.4.2010 and thus the complaint is filed within the statutory period of two years as contemplated under section 24 A of C.P.Act. Therefore we hold that the complaint is not barred by limitation and the complaint is maintainable and the contention of the 1^st opposite party in this regard is untenable.

 

7.         There is no force in the further contention of the 1^st Respondent/1^st opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable under C.P.Act and the contention is unsustainable and we hold that the complaint is maintainable under C.P.Act.

 

8.        It is pertinent to note that the payment of Rs.35,000/- to the 1^st opposite party on 20.4.2008 towards membership fee is admitted by the 1^st opposite party. That the complainant did not comply with the conditions and he had not submitted the photographs of his wife and son and proof of date of birth with I.D within time and further, the complainant did not go over to the office to collect the membership/I.D.card do not merit acceptance. There is no evidence on record to hold that the 1^st opposite party ever contacted the complainant to intimate that the photographs were not received by them. According to the complainant,  he complied with the formalities of the 1^st opposite party like filling and signing the application form and submitting it to  1^st opposite party along with photographs and photo copies of I.D.proof for age and only after  completing the formalities, the sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid to the 1^st opposite party.

 

9.        It is to be further noted that the 1^st opposite party has stated in the version that mere non-reply to the notice to the complainant would not in any way amount to admission. Therefore, it is implied that the 1^st opposite party has received the notice under Ex.A.8 issued by the complainant.  

 

10.         On consideration of the entire materials on record we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in not issuing membership/I.D. card to the complainant  after collecting of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant as membership fee.

 

11.           The District Forum has not considered the evidence in the proper perspective and erred in holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and in dismissing the complaint and therefore the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

 

12.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as against 1^st opposite party setting aside the order of the District Forum and directing the 1^st opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only )  to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party shall pay costs of Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant in the appeal.

 

 

   P.BAKIYAVATHI                        J. JAYARAM                          R.REGUPATHI

         MEMBER                              JUDICIAL MEMBER                  PRESIDENT