BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 801 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.552 OF 2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III HYDERABAD
Between
- Counry Vacations
(A Division of Country Club (I) Ltd., rep. By its
Chairman & Managing Director
Regd. Off: Amrutha Castle, H.No.5-9-16
Saifabad, Opp. Secretariat
Hyderabad-500 063
2. The Manger, Country Vacations
(A Division of Country Club (I) Ltd.,
Plot No.205, I Floor, GVK Plaza
Besides Central Bank, Seethammapeta
Main Road, Visakapatnam-530016
3. Country Vacations,
(A Division of Country Club (I) Ltd., )
rep. By Authorized Signatory
Regd. Off: 6-3-1219, Begumpet
Hyderabad-50016
Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
- G.V.Satyanarayana S/o late Visweswara Rao
aged about 45 years, Occ: Govt. Employee (died)
2. G.Gayatri W/o late GV Satyanarayana
Aged about 43 years, Occ: Housewife
3. G.Bhavan Srimayi
rep. By her natural guardian/mother
Smt G.Gayatri D/o late G Satyanarayana
aged about 15 years
4. G.Bindu Vaishnavi
rep. By her natural Guardian/Mother
Smt G.Gayatri D/o late GV Satryanaraya
aged about 12 years,
(All are R/o Plot No.18, Srisainagar, Jillegaguda
Meerpet (PO), Hyderabad-500097
Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellant S.Rajesh Jaiswal
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Died
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Deemed Served
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parteis aggrieved by the orders of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad dated 10.06.2013 made in CC No.552 of 2010 in partly allowing the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.95,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of payment till realization together compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that induced by the said representations the complainant paid an amount of Rs.55,000/- towards purchase and administrative fee through the opposite party no.2 to obtain membership for 5 years in Studio Type Apartments for season Blue Type with 100 points agreement dated 23.12.2007. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and requested to allot North East or North -West corner plot at the time of payment made towards allotment of plot. Thereafter when the complainant visited the venture at Warangal, they found there are no such house plots and contacted the opposite parties for refund of the amount. Instead of refunding the amount, the opposite parties issued letter dated 03.12.2009 stating that the complementary plot allotted in FAIRWAY (C) at Warangal and the said plot is expected to be registered within 18 months and demanded to pay registration and development charges of Rs.20,000/- along with a copy of proposed layout plan. The complainants have not utilized the holiday resorts even though they paid the entire amount towards club membership. The opposite parties not allotted the plot number chosen by the complainants either in BIRDIE-V are FAIRWAY (C) Ventures at Warangal District. The complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant but the opposite parties failed to refund the amount. Hence the complainant praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.95,000/- with interest @ 24% together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The opposite party resisted the case contending that the complainants never approached the opposite party and requested for accommodation for a period of one week in the resorts of the opposite parties as such there was no deficiency of service on their part. The complainant paid Rs.55,000/- towards the membership fees in respect of purchase with the opposite parties. The complainant requested the opposite parties to allot plot on North-East or North-West corner plot but the complainant was allotted complementary plot without any consideration and in the allotment letter it is specifically stated that the complainant shall pay the development and registration charges of rS.20,000/- but the complainant failed to pay the same. The opposite parties ready to register the plot in the name of the complainants after the receipt of the said development and registration charges. It is for the complainants to utilize the holiday facilities available with the opposite parties and fi they failed to utilize it is not the fault of the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant no.1 filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A8 while on behalf of the Opposite party, the Customer Relations Manager filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.B1 and B2 marked.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.552 of 2010 by orders dated 10.06.2013 granting the reliefs, as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It is contended that the District Forum failed to consider the terms and conditions of purchase agreement. Though the opposite party allotted complimentary plot to the complainant he failed to pay the development and registration charges of Rs.20,000/-. The membership amount is non-refundable. Hence, the opposite party prayed to allow the appeal.
8. The counsel for the Opposite party and the complainant had advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version. Heard both sides.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
10. It is not in dispute that the Complainants paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- on 21.12.2007 towards purchase price and administration fees for membership and an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards allotment of plot at Birdie-V at Warangal District evidenced under Exs.A1 and A2. It is also not disputed that the opposite party allotted plot No.3954 at Fairway at Warangal District. The opposite party issued allotment letter dated 03.12.2009 where under the complainants were informed that the plot would be registered in their name after completion of formalities pertaining to acquiring of the land such as conversion of the land, approval of the layout, survey of the land etc. The terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter are that completion of all governmental formalities and development of the project and also subject to payment of registration charges and development charges of Rs.20,000/- in favour of its sister concern M/s Amrutha Estates.
11. The other conditions mentioned in the allotment letter are that venture, phase dimensions, plot numbers and layout plans are subject to change from what was mentioned in the brochure. Construction rights over plot are vested in the opposite party club and any construction over the plot would be made through the opposite party club. Except stating that the complainants have not paid the registration charges and development charges, the opposite party club had not adduced evidence to show that it had discharged its part of the contract. The opposite party has not stated the stage of the project and whether the layout is approved and whether there was any change in the dimensions of the plot etc. It is not the case of the opposite party that the complainants had not paid the entire membership fees.
12. The complainants had paid the entire membership fee, the obligations rests on the opposite party club to inform them the stage of development of project and changes made if any, either in layout plan or in the policy of government regarding land acquisition etc. The opposite party cannot take shelter under non-payment of registration charges and development charges by the complainants. It is not clear whether the amount of Rs.20,000/- mentioned in the allotment letter is consolidated amount or the development charges claimed are different from the registration charges.
13. May be, for the reason that the opposite party is allotting the complimentary sites, the complainants were lured to become as members. On physical verification of the site by the complainants, there appeared no such venture physically and that the sites mentioned in the agreement also not really existing. Though the counsel for opposite party would contend that the sites really exist at the places mentioned therein in the agreement, no evidence is placed on record to vouchsafe their contention. Had really the sites been existing, the opposite party would have filed the service tax particulars for the particular period so as to show that the sites are really existing. In such a circumstance, an adverse inference is to be drawn that without providing any realistic sites, the opposite party offered the scheme to the public including the complainants and thereby lured them to shell out the money. In any view of the matter there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party club in its failure to inform the complainants the stage of development of the project and the amount to be paid by them towards registration charges and development charges.
14. It is settled law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of contract. The complainants requested the opposite party to refund the amount paid by them. The opposite party has not responded to their request and it has not allotted the accommodation at the request of the complainants. The inaction of the opposite party in this regard is made basis for claim for return of the entire amount paid by the complainants. Admittedly, though the complainants became members of the scheme, they could not avail the benefits and accordingly requested for refund of the amount paid by them. These facts would certainly constitute deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The forum below after considering the facts in detail, passed the orders which do not require any interference.
15. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any merit in the contentions of the Appellants and accordingly find no fault with the findings of the forum below. In the circumstances discussed supra, we answer the point framed for consideration in paragraph No.9 , supra, in favour of the complainants/respondents and against the opposite parties/appellants.
In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed but no costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated: 02.06.2017
