STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA NO. 81 of 2014
AGAINST
CC NO. No. 471 OF 2012, DISTRICT FORUM -1, HYDERABAD
Between:
Smt. Ch. Ramadevi
D/o Ch. Kanakaiah Goud
Aged about years, Occ : House wife
R/o Qtr. No. C1/6, NTPC Jyothi Nagar
Ramagundam, Karimnagar -505 215 … Appellant/complainant
And
- The Country Club,
( A Division of Country Club India Ltd)
Rep by its Managing Director,
Sri Rajeev Reddy
6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 16
- The Amrutha Estates,
Rep by its authorized Signatory,
D.No.8-2-703, Silver Oak,
Amrutha Valley,
Road No.13, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad – 34 .. Respondents/opp. parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. Rajesh Jaiswal for R1 and R2
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday, the Twenty Fourth Day of August
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
****
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the Appellant/complainant to set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2013 made in CC No. 471/2012 on the file of the District Forum I, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she joined as a Life member with offer of allotting a plot admeasuring 150 sq. yards in opposite parties club by paying Rs.40,000/- on 05.12.2007. OP. 2 issued allotment letter 14.12.2007 along with layout plan of the site intimating that plot No. 4175 admeasuring 150 sq. yards at Golf Village ( Birdie-IV) situated at Kalvalapally village, Raghunathapally Mandal, Warangal District and also requested her to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards development/betterment charges and maintenance charges. When she visited the site, since there was no development or improvement in the site as promised by the opposite parties and negligent reply from the officials, she did not pay the balance amount and requested for refund of the amount. As there was no response from the opposite parties, she got issued legal notice dt. 6.4.2012 for refund of the amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 24% pa, compensation and costs. Even for that also as there was no reply from the Opposite parties, she was compelled to file complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 24% pa from the date of payment, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.3,000/-.
4) The opposite parties in their written version while admitting the membership of the complainant and payment of Rs.40,000/- out of total amount of Rs.75,000/- contended that the complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- within 30 days as per the terms and conditions though they have allotted complementary plot on 5.12.2007. Further, the plot will be registered within 18 months from the date of receiving the total membership fee subject to full payment of the amount including registration and development charges. But she did not pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards developmental charges. As per clause no. 8 of the application, the complainant has no right to demand refund of the amount. Since the transaction took place in the year 2007, the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the appellant/complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-10 and the respondents/opposite parties filed Evidence Affidavit and got marked Ex. B-1 to B-4. Heard both sides and both parties filed their respective written arguments.
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
8) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant preferred the appeal before this Commission.
9) Counsel on both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof and written arguments. Heard the counsel on both sides.
10) The points that arises for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
11) Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- vide Receipt bearing No. 25835 on 5.12.2007 and Rs.35,000/- Vide Receipt bearing No. 25836 dated 5.12.2007, in total, Rs.40,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- towards Membership fee to the first opposite party. There is also no dispute that the appellant/complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- within 30 days as per Ex. A3. There is also no dispute that Plot No., 4175 admeasuring 150 sq. yards was allotted to the appellant/complainant by OP.2 with a request to remit an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards development/betterment charges, registration charges of the plot and maintenance charges for 2 ½ years while undertaking to register the plot within 18 months from the date of allotment letter subject to fulfillment of membership fee of country club vide Letter of Allotment dated 14.12.2007.
12) (i) The contention of the appellant/complainant is that when she visited the site of allotment, there was no approach roads and the site was not developed as assured by the opposite parties and since there was no development and no response from the respondents/opposite parties she did not pay the amount and hence she is entitled for refund of the amount.
(ii) The respondents/opposite parties rebutted the same contending that since the appellant/complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- towards membership fee nor registration fee and development charges of Rs.15,000/- despite allotment of plot, hence she has no right to claim refund of the amount. Further, as per clause 8 of application the complainant has no right to demand refund the amount.
- We have perused clause 8 of the application which reads follows :
“This is a Limited and exclusive offer for membership. In case the application is not accepted by the Board of Directors, the application money will be refunded within 90 days from the date of rejection of application. In case full amount of membership fee is not remitted within 6 months from the date of allotment of membership, then money remitted till then would be forfeited by the club and membership allotted if any would be cancelled.
Admittedly the appellant/complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.75,000/- towards membership fee. Perusal of the application shows that there was signature said to have been subscribed by the appellant/complainant. When she did not pay the entire amount, she would not become a member. When she did not become a member, she has no right to claim for refund of the amount as per above clause. Further, she did not pay the betterment charges and also registration charges within the stipulated time. The complainant did not fulfill her obligation on her part. However, it may be true that the venture was not developed as promised by the respondents/opposite parties but the appellant/complainant did not pay the developmental charges. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant that the respondents/opposite parties offered fully developed venture with all amenties. The above facts infer that there are no reasonable grounds in favour of the appellant/complainant to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.
13). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties, this Commission is of the view the appellant/complaint could not prove that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. There are no infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum, after considering the important aspects and consideration, rightly dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. . This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
14. Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order. No order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated :24.08.2017.
