Date of filing : 20.7.2017
Judgment : Dt.26.7.2018
Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member
This is a complaint made by Gaurav Banerjee, son of Dwizen Banerjee, residing at 19A, Puddopukur Road, Near Lansdown Puddopukur Crossing, P.O.-Lajpat Rai Sarani, P.S.-Ballygunge, Dist.- South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 020 against (1) Chief Managing Director, Country Club India Limited, Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telengana, PIN-500 063 (OP No.1) and (2) Regional Manager, Country Club (India) Limited, 63, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700 016 (OP No.2), praying for directions upon OPs to return Rs.2,20,000/- and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that the Complainant being allured by the advertisement by OP in daily news paper to provide lucrative services to their Club Members and being persuaded by the misrepresentations of Mr. Saif Khan and Mr. Debashish Sengupta being the Manager and Executive who are attached with OP No.2, the Complainant became a member of OP’s Club by paying Rs.2,20,000/- in different installments. Accordingly, OP issued one letter dt.5.7.2008 to the Complainant for acknowledging him as Cool Global Parivar Card member being membership No.T-615. OP also issued a temporary membership card valid for 45 days just to use the facilities till the laminated card is ready. Thereafter, the Complainant received one more letter dt.21.7.2008 from the OPs mentioning the membership of the Complainant as CG P186 K and assured the Complainant to get a 2000 sq.ft. plot at KOLAD. The Complainant complied all sorts of formalities like photo and other documents as desired by the OPs but did the Complainant neither got new membership card nor any services in lieu of old temporary card. Again two executives of OPs namely Mr. Kapil and Kr. Asad visited the residence of the Complainant on 3.3.2010 and took the original allotment letter and old membership card and made the petitioner signed with undertaking that the Complainant has relinquished his rights to get gift of plot of land and in exchange the Complainant would avail the free membership facilities to his sister Esha Bhattacherjee. It is also mentioned that on 3.3.2010 he was forced to sign on a paper where it was written that the Complainant had converted from old scheme to new scheme “Zing Pemium membership” and instead of availing land of 2000 sq.ft. in KOLAD, now the Complainant is supposed to get (1) six night and 7 days holiday for 30 years (2) one way air tickets for Goa, for couple, taxes extra, (3) entry to all CK27 across India and (4) Direct access to all country Club properties. The free membership under the “Zing Premium Membership” was done in the name of Esha Bhattacherjee as purchase agreement dt.3.3.2010. The executives who visited on 3.3.2010 apologized and assured Complainant that from now onwards will get all sorts of services along with fresh membership card and so he relied upon their misrepresentations, the Complainant handed over all such paper and documents to the Executives of OPs on good faith with an expectation that the matter would be settled but surprisingly it was not. The Complainant tried to contact OPs several times over telephone and being not answered he sent letter through his Ld. Advocate on 21.1.2012, 7.6.2017 and thereafter on 3.7.2017 but there was no response. Since the OPs made false promises and extracted money, so the Complainant filed this case.
Notices were served upon OPs.
OPs contested this case by filing written version and denied all allegations contained in the complaint petition. OPs in their written version stated, inter alia that Complainant is not a consumer, the case is barred by limitations since the cause of action arose in 2010-2012, no service was availed by the Complainant from OP and the case is filed in 2017 and moreover the Complainant case falls under non-joinder of necessary parties.
The OPs have also mentioned one appeal No.FA/778/2014 in SCDRC, WB in Ayush Bhalotia VS Country Club India.
Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts as stated in the petition of complaint. Complainant in his Affidavit-in-chief has stated that he is a consumer since the OPs have taken money from the Complainant. Also stated that the representatives of OPs have visited and so the OPs are answerable for act done by them, while doing their duty. Since the Complainant was made a member for a period of 30 years from 2008 and so it is a false statement by the OPs that the case is barred by limitation.
OPs did not file evidence and prayed for treating written version as Evidence-in-chief.
Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs prayed for treating their Evidence as Affidavit-in-reply.
Complainant has filed BNA.
OPs did not file BNA and prayed for treating their written version as BNA.
Points for determination-
- Whether the case is maintainable before this Forum?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons.
Point No.(i)
On perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the Opposite Parties Ltd. Co. has its Head office at Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana, PIN Code-500063. OP Ltd. Co. runs its business in this region from its office situated at 83, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700 016. It further appears from the statement as made out in the petition of complaint that the OP Ltd. Co. received amount for consideration in respect of the promised to for which the parties entered into agreements on 5.7.2008 and subsequently, after cancellation of the said agreement on 3.3.2010 executed further agreement. It also appears from the copies of Money Receipts filed by the Complainant that the said receipts were issued by the OPs from their office having postal address at Park Plaza, 71, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016.
However, Sec.11(2) of the C.P.Act, 1986
“A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction –
- The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
- Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or
- The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
In the instant case, the OPs neither have their office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor run business from the said jurisdiction. Moreover, no cause of action has been taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Under such statutory provision, the instant case is not maintainable before this Forum.
Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
Point No.(ii) & (iii)
Since we hold that the instant case is not maintainable before this Forum there is no scope to enter into the merits of the case and thus to determine the point No.(ii) & (iii).
In the result, the instant Consumer Complaint does not succeed.
Hence Ordered,
CC/404/2017 and the same is dismissed being not maintainable before this Forum.
The Complainant is at liberty to file any Consumer Complaint on same cause of action before any appropriate Court of Law.
