BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 712 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.447 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD
Between
The Country Club India Ltd., rep. by its
Customer Relations Manager, Srinivas Gupta
S/o Mallikarjun, aged about 40 years
O/o Premises H.No.6-3-1219, Begumpet,
Hyderabad
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
- K.V.Ramana Raju S/o K.V.Hanumantha Raju
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business
- Smt K.Sirisha W/o K.V.Ramana Raju
Aged about 43 years, Occ: House-Wife
Both are R/o H.No.7-1-35, Flat No.204,
Viswa Swarpma Apartments
Dharam-Kharam Road, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad
Respondents/complainants
- Mr.Srinivas Rao S/o Somaiah
Occ: MD of Country Club India Ltd.,
O/o Premises H.No.6-3-1219, Begumpet,
Hyderabad (OP No.2 name is wrongly shown
As he is not the Managing Director of Country
Club (I) Ltd., and as such shown as respondent)
(Respondent no.2 is not a necessary party in this appeal)
Respondent no.3/opposite party no.2
Counsel for the Appellant Sri S.Rajesh Jaiswal
Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 M/s Prakash Chakravarthy
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 party aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad dated 28.05.2013 made in CC 447 of 2011 in partly allowing the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,95,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization together compensation of Rs.5,000/- 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, the Complainant for availing the facility of enjoying vacation rendered by the opposite parties entered into a Membership Purchase Agreement for Club and Vacation Membership with the opposite parties on 09.09.2010 and paid Rs.1,95,000/- to the opposite parties towards consideration amount of Membership. The opposite parties issued a temporary Membership Card at the time of execution of the said agreement but did not issue any life Membership Card which they were supposed to issue subsequently and, as a result, the Complainant could not avail the membership facility of holiday resort ran by the opposite parties. While so in the first week of January 2011, the complainant approached the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and requested them to arrange accommodation at Dubai Hotel as the complainants were planning a business trip in Dubai to which they stated that there is no hotels or resorts owned by them in Dubai and that the complainant shave to obtain such accommodation on rents for which the complainants have to bear their own expenditure. Further, the Complainants requested the opposite parteis to issue the life Membership Card on several occasions, but all were in vain. Hence, the case. The Complainant prayed for direction upon the opposite parties to return an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- along with interest @ 18%, Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to mental agony, harassment and also a litigation costs.
4. The opposite parties resisted the case denying and disputing all material allegations levelled against them stating, inter alia, that the complainants never requested the opposite parties to provide the accommodation at Dubai hotel at any time. The complainant and other members of the club will be treated in the same way as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and no special treatment will be given to any member but all the members will be treated equally as per the terms and conditions of the rules of the club. This forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case, Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant no.2 got filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A4 while on behalf of the opposite party, its Manager, Mr.Srinivasa Gupta filed his affidavit and no documents have been filed.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.447/2011 by orders dated 28.05.2013, 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. The opposite party no.1 contended as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the opposite parties are liable to pay annual maintenance charges and the same was not paid. The District Forum failed to consider that the required facilities are available with opposite party club and it is for the complainants to utilize the facilities at the club approaching the same within time. There is no documentary evidence filed by the complainants that they informed the opposite parties well in advance for accommodation in Dubai and there was no response from the opposite parties. Mr.Srinivas Rao is not the authorized signatory of the opposite party no.1 nor he is the Managing Director of the opposite party no.1. Hence, he prayed to set aside the orders of the District Forum and allow the appeal.
8. 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 ?
9. The complainant in the opening para of his complaint has stated that the opposite parties had approached the complainants and allured them to join the Country Vacations International Holiday Club Membership and offered free country club Membership for the life time by which the complainants can access to all other affiliated clubs within India and abroad and the complainant believing this had signed the agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement on purchase of the points stipulated overleaf in “ particulars of vacations Ownership” the complainants are entitling the rights to ta right of occupation at the Country Vacations International Holiday Club Resorts and that such rights exist for Thirty consecutive years from the date of the agreement. Believing this the complainants planned to visit Dubai on a business trip approached the opposite parties for accommodation in Dubai Hotel and informed the same well in advance. But the opposite parties stated that there is no hotels or resorts owned by them in Dubai and that the complainants have to obtain such accommodation on rents for which the complainant have to bear their own expenditure. The opposite parties at the time of joining of members in their club offering them free country club membership for the life time and free accommodation in their hotels/resorts at various places in the country and abroad and attracted by their offerings the customers are joining the club but after the joining of the members in the club, the opposite parties failed to fulfil their promises by not allotting accommodation and not providing life time membership to them. In the instant case, the complainants in the month of January 2011 requested the opposite parties to book accommodation in Dubai Hotel as they are planning to go on Business trip to Dubai but when the opposite parties refused the same on the ground that the complainants should have intimated the same a week or ten days before the journey. Therefore, the complainants again requested the opposite parties for their accommodation in Dubai Hotel well in advance but the opposite parties stated that they have no hotels or resorts at Dubai. Not only that they opposite parties had also promised to give life membership in a country club for their family members but when their children joined in the club the opposite parties have been collecting charges for every service. Therefore, the complainants immediately expressed their intention not to continue with the agreement and requested for cancellation. Apparently, by offering benefits to the complainants before joining the club and in all probability some other benefits also, the opposite parties made the complainants to sign the agreement and they apparently did so in good faith believing the version of the opposite parties to be correct. When the complainants requested the amount paid by them after cancellation the opposite parties were deficient in rendering service by not refunding the amount. The complainants were forced to file complaint before the Forum, by engaging a Counsel. Thus, they underwent immense mental agony and physical harassment. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount. We are of the opinion that the complainants without any delay apprised opposite parties that the terms & conditions of the present agreement were not inconsonance with the initial proposal or invitations to offer made by the representative of the company. By not honouring the request of the complainants to cancel the contract and by not refunding the amount, the opposite parties are found to be deficient in rendering service and indulging into unfair trade practice. The forum below after considering the facts in detail, passed the orders which do not require any interference.
10. 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
