BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 539 OF 2014 AGAINST CC No.243 OF 2013
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD
Between :
Smt. B.Shalini,
W/o. B.Yashpal,
Age : 25 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o. Plot No.12, Road No.7,
Balajinagar, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet,
Hyderabad. – 500035. …Appellant / Complainant
AND
The Country Club (India) Ltd.,
Rep. by Managing Director,
5-9-16, Opp: Secretariat, Saifabad,
Hyderabad – 500063.
Country Vacations,
A Division of Country Club (India) Ltd.,
Rep. by Managing Director,
No.3-6-367, 368, 369, 3rd Floor,
Flat No.306,
Skill Spectrum Building,
Beside TTD Kalyana Mandapam,
Liberty X Road, Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad – 500029. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant : Sri K.Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite Parties : M/s. Rajesh Jaiswal & Meenakshi
Jaiswal
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Hon’ble Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday the Twenty Eighth day of February
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
This Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the District Forum’) in C.C.No.243/2013 dismissing the complaint without costs. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the complaint.
2 The case of the Complainant, in a nutshell, is that she purchased membership of the Club of the Opposite Parties by making payment of Rs.1,40,000/- on 29.06.2012 but their executive has issued a receipt only for Rs.60,000/- by stating that, after payment of balance amount of Rs.80,000/- pucca receipt for Rs.1,40,000/- would be issued. Her further case is that the Opposite Parties did not allot a plot of 150 Sq. yards at FAIR WAY EXTENTION as promised, and even failed to furnish it’s particulars such as layout and location. Despite issuing of a legal notice by the Complainant on 18.02.2013, the Opposite Parties have neither returned the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- not sent any reply to the notice. Therefore, she sought refund of said amount with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3 While resisting the claim, the Opposite Parties have contended before the District Forum by way of a written version, interalia, that the Complainant paid only Rs.60,000/- and still the balance of Rs.80,000/- is due and that as such, as per the practice, a pucca receipt will be issued only after payment of the entire consideration amount of Rs.1,40,000/- in terms of the Purchase Agreement. Further, she has to pay annual maintenance charges of Rs.2,500/- to avail the club facility. Their further defence is that the Complainant herself committed breach of contract and approached the District Forum instead of a Civil Court when the dispute is of a civil nature. Therefore, they sought dismissal of the complaint.
4 After due enquiry into the matter the District Forum dismissed the complaint as noted in para No.1 supra.
5 The contention of the Appellant/Complainant in the present Appeal, which has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is that the District Forum did not consider properly the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A4 filed and relied on by her and erred in concluding that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service and that thus the order under Appeal is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case but based on assumptions and presumptions and that as such the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the present Appeal.
6 Perused the material evidence on record, impugned Order and the written arguments of the Appellant / Complainant (the Respondents / Opposite Parties did not choose to file written arguments) and heard both the learned counsel.
7 Now the point for consideration is that:
whether the impugned order is erroneous, illegal and without proper appreciation of evidence and that as such liable to be set aside ?
8. Point: Undisputedly the Complainant has purchased membership of the Opposite Party No.1 Club by virtue of an Agreement on 29.06.2012 for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and paid Rs.60,000/- in cash. Ex.A1 is the original receipt dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Opposite Party No.2. Ex.B1 and B2 are also bifurcated receipts of it for Rs.35,000/- & Rs,25,000/- respectively, making the total to Rs.60,000/-. The purchase Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for up-gradation of existing membership were marked as Ex.A2 and A3 respectively consisting of the terms and conditions of the membership to avail the facilities being provided by the Opposite Parties.
9. As per the Complainant, though she remitted entire consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- the Executive and Opposite Parties did not pass receipt for Rs.80,000/- but only passed for Rs.60,000/-. The Opposite Parties have denied and disputed the said allegation by asserting that she paid only Rs.60,000/- and that the balance of Rs.80,000/- is yet to be paid. This is the only crux of the issue. To resolve this aspect let us refer to the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Agreements. They show that the amount of Rs.30,000/- is towards purchase of initial membership and Rs.75,000/- is for it’s up-gradation. In the instant case, the Complainant became initial member of the Club and also sought it’s up-gradation on the same day. Undisputedly, a person has to pay Rs.1,40,000/- to become a member of the Club apart from Rs.2,500/- towards annual administration charges to avail various services of the Club. As per Clause-5 of the Agreement under Ex.A3 the Complainant had agreed to pay the balance up-gradation fee of Rs.80,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 within 90 days of the Agreement. Though the Complainant has alleged that she paid the said amount also, there is no evidence to that effect. It is to be noted that, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement and that Fora cannot change or alter the same. Thus, the Complainant did not discharge her burden of proof to establish her allegation of payment of Rs.80,000/-. It is also significant to notice that as per the Agreement under Ex.A2 the amount paid by a member is non refundable under any circumstances as the amount is not a Deposit. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the claim of the Complainant is not tenable in the eye of law.
10. We have given careful consideration to the Order under Appeal. In our opinion, the learned District Forum has meticulously considered all the aspects in issue and passed the Order with appealing reasons. We are also of the opinion that the same is neither perverse nor tainted with any illegality or irregularity. In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned Order deserves no interference and that as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
11. The point is answered accordingly.
12. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed by confirming the impugned Order. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and in the peculiar circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
