PRESENT

                   Complainant by Adv.Smt.Bhosale present.      

                    Opponent by representative Adv.Shradhha Worlikar present.       

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)

1. The Complainant has filed the complaint against the Opponent for deficiency-in-service as per section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant is a respectable citizen of India working in a private company.  The Complainant paid total  Rs. 1,99,500/-  i.e. Rs. 1,95,000/- as club membership fees and Rs. 4,500/- as annual administration charges of “The Mr. Kool Global Parivar Membership” to opponent on 30^th June 2008
3. The complainant stated that, opponent agreed to give the RCI Membership for 30 years, special gift of Three Thousand Sq.ft of Plot at Kolad and other facilities. The opponent issued a Photo smart card to Complainant and for all her family members for the said membership.
4. The Compliant stated that, the opponent failed to issue allotment letter in respect of 3000 Sq. ft. plot at Golf Village at Kolad Dis. Raigad. He kept on sending letters to opponent in respect of plot allotment to him in Golf Village in Kolad However, he did not received any reply from the opponent. He submitted that, amount was paid with a hope of getting a said plot at Kolad and also the RCI membership card as promised by the opponent. He submitted that, opponent is guilty for unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.
5. The complaint prayed for direction to opponent to allot the said plot no. 60 admeasuring 3000 sq.ft to the complaint at Golf Village Kolad or to refund the amount paid by the complaint with interest as well as compensation and cost. 
6. The opposite party filed his written statement on 02.11.2011 and denied the allegations made by the complainant and resisted the complaint on all counts. Opponent also alleged that the present complaint is filed only with the intention to harass the opponents as no cause of action has arisen against the opponents.
7. The complainant is not entitled to repudiate the contract unilaterally. The amount paid by the complainant was non refundable as per the agreement, hence has no right of asking of refund of membership fees from the opponent. The opponent submitted that, the plot was complementary with zero consideration.
8. The opposite party stated that complainant is not consumer and complaint is not maintainable as per law.
9. The opposite party states that as per agreement only courts of Hyderabad and Secunderabad will have jurisdiction in case of disputes arising if any.
10. The opposite party states that complainant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the membership.
11.  The opposite party stated that as far as allotment of plot is concerned their role is limited as the allotment of plot was subject to policy of government regarding the Land acquisition, plotting, layout etc.
12. It is contended that free plot is a gift which does not have any kind of consideration.
13. The opposite party submitted that they have already issued a letter for allotment of plot which was complementary as per agreement.
14. It is further submitted that opponent is always ready to fulfill obligations as per agreement. It is prayed that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
15. We have perused all the documents produced on record by both the sides. Heard complainant and opponent at length.  
16. The main contention of the complainant is that opponent failed to render service as per the agreement of membership.
17. On perusal of the documents it is evident that opposite party had allotted to the complainant the plot bearing No. 60 about 3000 sq.ft. at Kolad, Near Mangaon, on Mumbai-Goa Highway, Dist: Raigad somewhere in July 2008.
18.  It is pertinent to note that opponent has not till this date given the possession of the said plot. The opponents have taken the defense that the allotment of plot is subject to policy of the government as to Land acquisition etc. The opponent failed to explain the steps taken by them for getting the clearance from competent authorities for giving the possession of the plot to the complainant.
19. We are of the opinion that opponent was under an obligation to act fairly with the complainant and was expected to take reasonable steps within proper time to handover the possession of the plot to the complainant.
20. The opponent on the other hand stated that complainant is not entitled for the said plot as the allotment was made as a complementary gift. The opponent is not permitted to take such stand as per law.
21. The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.1,99,500/- however the opponents failed to perform contractual obligation of rendering service to him.
22. The complainant was subjected to mental agony due to breach of contractual obligation on the part of opponent and therefore is entitle to receive compensation from the opponent who has broken the contract.
23. The complainant is entitled to rescind the contract due to breach of contract by opponent.    
24. We are of the opinion that opponent is guilty for unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service by depriving the complainant of her legal right conferred on him as per agreement.
25. We are of the opinion that opponent is guilty for breach of trust for accepting huge amount on the assurance of giving plot and other benefits and lastly stating that the allotment of the plot was complementary and without consideration.
26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we feel proper in interest of justice to direct the opposite party to refund the total amount of Rs.1,99,500/- paid by complainant. The complainant prayed that the said amount be refunded with interest @ 24% and claimed compensation of rupees 200000/- for mental agony.
27. We are of the opinion that, the opponent is not in a position to allot the plot, so we feel it proper to direct the opponent to refund the amount to complainant.
28. We accept her prayer for refund of Rs.1,99,500/- with interest @ 18% from the date of admitting of this complaint i.e. 28.07.2011.

The complainant is entitle to compensation of rupees 25,000/- for mental agony. The complainant is entitle for cost of Rs.10,000/- from opponent.

29.     In the result, we pass the following order.

Order

1. RBT Complaint Case No. 343/2011 is partly allowed.

   2.       The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,99,500/- with interest @ 18 %

              p.a from the date of filling of the complaint i.e 28.07.2011 till realization

             to complainant

3.       The opposite parties is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to complainant

          as compensation for mental agony.

4.       The opposite parties is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to complainant.