BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 409 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.914 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD
Between
M/s Country Vacations,
Division of Country Club (India) Ltd.,
H.No.3-6-12/13, 4th Floor, Al-Samad
Liberty X Roads, Himayath Nagar
Hyderabad
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
- S.V.Nageswara Rao S/o late S.Satyanarayana Murthy
Aged about 52 years, Occ: Tax Consultant
R/o 201, Anusha Enclave, Plot No.HIG 11 and 12
Darmareddy Colony, Phase III (KPHB)
-
- Mrs S.P.N.Laxmi W/o S.V.Nageswara Rao
Aged about 42 years, Occ: Pvt Service
R/o 201, Anusha Enclave Plot No.HIG 11 and 12
Darmareddy Colony, Phase III (KPHB)
-
Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellant S.Rajesh Jaiswal
Counsel for the Respondent M/s Aadesh Varma
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 complainant dissatisfied with the orders of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad dated 01.10.2013 made in CC No.914 of 2011 in partly allowing the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,10,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization together with 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 purchased rights of the country vacations International Holiday Club for a total consideration of Rs.1,15,000/- entered into agreement dated 24.09.2008 by paying the above amount. The opposite party promised the complainants that if they purchase the points they will receive an annual income for Rs.24,000/- against which administration charges of Rs.4,000/- would be adjusted and balance shall be remitted to the complainant if the complainant do not avail the resorts/facilities of accommodation from the opposite party. Further offered to give two plots to the complainants free of cost but they failed to allot any such plots. Further, the opposite party promised to give a complementary package “ free Country SPA package” at Yadagirigutta, Jangaon but no such facility was given to the complainant. The opposite parties were denied the facility of the package under the guise of non-payment of developmental charges on the complementary plots offered by them. Therefore there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as the opposite party has committed breach of contract and failure to extend facilities such as accommodations at various resorts, free life membership of country club, plot each complainant and complementary SPA package at Yadagirigutta, Jangaon. Hence, the complaint. Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,15,000/- with interest @ 18% per month from 24.09.2008 together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.
4. The opposite party resisted the case contending that the complainants became the members of the Club by entering into purchase agreement with the opposite party for time share for a period of 5 years in respect of apartment type Studio for blue Season in respect of the properties of the opposite party. The complainants are entitled to request for accommodation once in a year for a period of one week for 5 consecutive years at any one of the resorts mentioned at Clause 7 of the agreement. As per the agreement complainants are liable to pay annual maintenance charges but the same is not paid. The complainants were issued membership cards of the Country Vacations International Club and also issued membership certificate dated 24.10.2008. The complainants having become member of the opposite party it is for them to utilize the facilities and if they are not utilizing the same, the opposite party is not at all at fault. The required facilities are available at the opposite party and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part. The complainants never approached the opposite party to avail the holidays. On 4.9.2008 the opposite party offered the plot on a complementary basis without any sale consideration and the members was asked to bear the developmental registration charges of Rs.20,000/- and the opposite party informed the complainants to pay the said developmental charges and they failed to pay the same till date. The opposite parties informed the complainants that the allotment of plots were complementary and also subject to payment of developmental and registration charges as agreed by the complainant. 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 A9 while on behalf of the Opposite party, the Customer Relations Manager filed his evidence affidavit and no documents have been filed.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.914 of 2011 by orders dated 01.10.2013 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.1,15,000/- on 19.04.2011 towards purchase price of 100 points and Rs.5,000/- towards administration fee. Ex.A4 and A5 are the receipts dated 25.09.2008 issued acknowledging receipt of the amount of Rs.1,15,000/-. Membership Purchase Agreement was entered into, between the complainants and the opposite party on 24.09.2008. The terms and conditions of the agreement provide for 1. Points Rights, 2. Allotment of accommodation, 3. Issuance of points certificate, 4. Management of Charges, 5. Choice of resorts, 6. Country vacations alliance, 9. Default in making payment of instalments, 10. Rights of the member to transfer vacation. Additional benefits extended to the complainants are as under:
- Life Membership of the country club
- Access to all other affiliated clubs in India and abroad
- Free utility of TAASHA for three years at Country
- Discount of 20% on food alone at Hotel Amrutha Castle - Hyderabad
- Discount on room-tariff at various hotels in India and abroad
- Discount at various shopping outlets across the country
- Accidental insurance coverage of Rs.5 lakhs.
11. It is not disputed that the opposite party allotted plot at Fairway at Wanaparthi. The opposite party issued allotment letter dated 28.07.2009 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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. Though the complainants have stated in their complaint the opposite party offered to give two plots but in support of their plea no evidence is adduced by them.
15. The complainants also pleaded that though the opposite party offered to grant free life membership in Country Club Hyderabad but it failed to grant any such membership to them. The complainants contended that the attitude of the opposite party club compelled them to opt for seeking refund of the amount with interest. The complainants stated that they requested for allotment of accommodation of SPA package and the opposite party postponed to book the accommodation on one pretext or other.
16. 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.
17. 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 party/appellant.
In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed but no costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 02.06.2017
