BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th MARCH 2009 PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NOs. 227/2009, 255/2009 256/2009, 257/2009, 258/2009, 268/2009 & 281/2009. COMPLAINT
NO.227/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.255/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.256/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.257/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.258/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.268/2009COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT
COMPLAINANT Sri.M.R.Krishna Murthy,Residing at No.85, 1st Floor,2nd Cross, Central Excise Layout, Vijayanagar,Bangalore – 40.(Advocate – Sri.S.Nagaraja)Mrs.Elizabeth Nicholas,W/o Felix Nicholas,Aged about 46 years,R/at No.12,Old Pearl Nursery Street,21st Cross, Behind Chavra Church,Ejipura,Bangalore – 560 047.Mrs.Deena Pereira,W/o Lawrence A.Pereira,Aged about 31 years,R/at No.10, 4th A Cross,Maruthinagar,Srinivas Temple Road,Madiwala Extension,Bangalore – 560 068.Mr.Prakash Anil Mendonca,S/o Alex Mendonca,Aged about 29 years,R/at No.16, 4th ‘B’ Cross,“Shree Maruthi Nilaya,Shree Venkateshwara Temple Road,Maruthi Nagar, Madiwala, Bangalore – 560 068.Mr.Munish Biddappa,R/at TF 302, Classic Calisto,Opp:Abhaya Reddy Layout,Kagadasapura Main Road,C.V.Raman Nagar Post,Bangalore – 560 075.Advocate – Sri.Kiran MurgodMr.Shridhar Prabhu,# 158, I Floor, II Main, III Cross, Near Bata Showroom,Chamarajapet,Bangalore – 560 018.Sri.K.M.Ram Prasad,Aged about 62 years,S/o K.Mallaiah,Residing at No.168,13th Main Road,Coffee Board Layout,Kebbal Kempapura,Bangalore – 560024.Advocate – Sri.H.S.Manjunath(Complaint No.281/2009)
OPPOSITE PARTIES V/s1) Chairman & Managing Director, Country Club (India) Ltd.,No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,Indira Nagar, 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.2) The Manager,Amrutha Estates,No.478, “Maha Padma”,1st Main, 1st Stage,Indira Nagar,Bangalore – 560 038.3) M/s. Country Club India Ltd.,R/by its Managing Director,# 273, 1st Main Road,Defence Colony, HAL 2nd Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.Also atM/s. Country Club (India) Ltd.,Regd. Office at “Amrutha Castle”, 5-9-16,Opp. Secretariat Saifabad, Hyderabad – 560 063.4) M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd.,(A Company under the Companies Act, 1956)No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,Indiranagar, 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.Represented by itsManaging DirectorMr.Y.Rajeev Reddy.5) The Managing Director,M/s. Country Club (I) Ltd.,# 750, Brindavan,Ground Floor,Krishna Temple Road,Near Sapna Book Stores,Indiranagar 1st Stage,Bangalore – 560 038.Advocate – Sri.S.M.Manjunatha
O R D E R These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by each one these respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund what ever the amount they have paid and pay a compensation and damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. As the opposite parties in all the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, these cases stand disposed of by this common order. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:
2. Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propa@@@@a issued by the OP thought of becoming the member of the club under various schemes. OP accepted their membership and collected the fees not only that OP has collected the monthly subscription fees also. OP promised so many attractive offers like ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay for 6 nights and 7 days, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay etc. But thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. For no fault of theirs complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainants in not providing the basic facilities and the services as promised. Under such circumstances complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For the convenience sake the card membership, amount paid, membership number, date of legal 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 Amount paid Member ship No. Legal Notice 1) 227/2009 Mr.Cool Card Member ship Rs.1,15,000/- COOL CG2355 31.12.2008 2) 255/2009 Mr.Cool Card Member ship Rs.1,15,000/- COOL CG2311 20.09.2008 3) 256/2009 Mr.Cool Card Member ship Rs.1,15,000/- COOL CG2314 20.09.2008 4) 257/2009 Mr.Cool Card Member ship Rs.1,15,000/- COOL CG2312 20.09.2008 5) 258/2009 Mr.Cool Card Member ship Rs.1,15,000/- COOL CG4454 22.10.2008 6) 268/2009 Mr.Cool Card Member ship Rs.1,25,000/- COOL CG619A --------------- 7) 281/2009 Mr.Cool Card Member ship Rs.99,000/- COOL CG483 10.01.2009 2. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in all the complaints is almost identical and same. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the version is as under: According to OP the club membership fee that is paid by each one of these complainants is non refundable. It is further contended that the OP’s are ready to execute the deed with respect to the complimentary sites in favour of the complainants as soon as complainants pay the registration and other miscellaneous charges as required. Each one of these complainants have extensively used the club facilities. The other allegations made by the complainants are all false and frivolous. Complaints are devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation nor obliged to refund the fees. Among these grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints.
3. 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. Then the arguments were heard.
4. 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 complainant’s have Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant’s are entitled for the relief’s now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order?
5. 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
6. At the out set it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants become the member of the OP scheme as noted in the chart. OP accepted their membership and allotted them certain number. It is also not at dispute that OP collected the membership fees as well as service charges as noted in the chart from each one of these complainants. Now the main grievance of the complainants is that though OP collected the service charges failed to provide the facilities as promised.
7. According to the complainants in complaint Nos.255/2009, 256/2009, 257/2009, 258/2009 and 268/2009 OP promised them to provide stay at ‘Royal Goan Beach club’ for 6 nights and 7days, free air ticket to Goa and stay at wildlife resort, ‘BUSH BETTA’ and other facilities. In spite of their repeated requests and demands OP failed to extend the said service as promised. The evidence of the complainant’s which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity.
8. When OP failed to heed to their demand complainants even caused the legal notice on 20.09.2008, 22.10.2008, 31.12.2008 and 10.01.2009. Copies of the legal notice, postal acknowledgements are produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainants felt deficiency in service. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk their responsibility and obligation. The defence of the OP that what ever the club membership fees paid is non refundable has no basis.
9. It is further contended by the OP that even now it is ready to execute the sale deed with respect to the complimentary sites if complainants pay required registration fees and stamp duty. No where complainants have sought for allotment of a complimentary site in their favour and registration of the same. So this defence of the OP is very strange.
10. OP is not very much sure about its own defence. No where OP has stated that it provided ‘Royal Goan Beach Club’ stay, insurance coverage, wildlife resort stay as contended by the complainants. So when there is no specific denial of the said allegations, in our view it amounts to an admission. Though OP received such a huge amount from each one of these complainants but failed to provide the said facilities as promised thereby accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of theirs. Here we find the deficiency in service.
11. The approach of the OP does not appear to be as very much fair and honest. Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Under such circumstances they are entitled for certain relief. Of course the claim of compensation by these complaints appears to be exorbitant and high. There is no basis for the said claim. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund what ever the amount it has received from the complainants towards membership along with token of compensation and litigation cost. With these observations we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints are allowed in part.
1. In complaint No.227/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from May 2006 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
2. In complaint No.255/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
3. In complaint No.256/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
4. In complaint No.257/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
5. In complaint No.258/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,15,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
6. In complaint No.268/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from June 2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
7. In complaint No.281/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.99,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from November 2007 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. This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.227/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.