PRESENT

                   Complainant By Representative Shri.Jehangir Gai present.      

                    Opponent by Adv.Shri.Prasad apte  present.    

ORDER

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

1.        The Complainants have filed the complaint against the Opponents for deficiency-in-service as per section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2.        The complainant no.1 is a consumer organization having object of protecting the interest of consumer. The complainant no.2 is a dental surgeon became a member of Golf Village relaying on the advertisement of opposite party no1 who is the developer of the gold village. The opposite party no.2 is vice-chairman of opponent no.1.
3.         The complainant stated that, as per the membership form the scheme included life time “Country Club Golf Village + Country Club Membership + Three Thousand Sq.ft of Plot at Kolad for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-”. The complainant no.2 paid the fees in installments from time to time. The complainant stated that the opposite parties informed that project had been delayed due to temporary set backs but the same would be completed soon. The complainant stated that opposite party failed to develop the Golf village as promised within a reasonable time and demanded further payments by sending a reminders. They prayed that opposite party be directed to refund the amount with interest and pay compensation and cost.
4.         The opponents filed written statement and resisted the complaint on all counts. The present complaint is filed only with the intention to harass the opponents as no cause of action has arisen against the opponents.
5.         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 opponents. The plot was complementary with zero consideration.
6.         The opposite party stated that complainant is not consumer and complaint is not maintainable as per law.
7.         The opposite party states that as per agreement only courts of Hyderabad and Secunderabad will have jurisdiction in case of disputes arising if any.
8.         The opposite party states that complainant failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the membership.
9.        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.
10.       It is contended that free plot is a gift which does not have any kind of consideration.
11.       The opposite party submitted that they have already issued a letter for allotment of plot which was complementary as per agreement. It is prayed that complaint is dismissed with cost.
12.       The opposite party stated that since the complainant no.2 failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the membership, the question of claiming himself as member of the opposite parties would never arise. It is further submitted that opponent no.1 is always ready to fulfill obligation as per agreement.
13.       We have perused all the documents produced on record by both the sides. Heard complainant and opponent at length.  
14.       The main contention of the complainant is that opponent failed to render service as per the agreement of membership.
15.       The opposite party submitted that complainant committed the breach of the terms of the agreement.
16.        On perusal of the document it is evident that opposite party had allotted to the complainant the plot bearing No. 82 about 3000 sq.ft. at Kolad, Near Mangaon, on Mumbai-Goa Highway, Dist: Raigad on 08/01/2009.
17.      It is pertinent to note that opponent has not till this date given the possession of the said plot. The opponents have taken the defence  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.
18.      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.
19.       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.
20.      The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.350000/- however the opponents failed to perform contractual obligation of rendering service to him.
21. The complainant has been suffered by breach of contractual obligation on the part of opponents. The complainant no 2 therefore is entitle to receive from the opponents who has broken the contract.
22.      The complainantno 2 is entitle to rescind the contract due to breach of contract by opponent parties.    
23.      We are of the opinion that opponent are  guilty for unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service by depriving the complainant of his legal right conferred on him as per agreement.
24.     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.

25.     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.350000/- paid by complainant. . The complainant no.2 prayed that the said amount be refunded with interest @ 24%. and claimed compensation of  rupees 100000/. We accept his prayer for refund of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 18% from the date of admitting of this complaint i.e. 03/01/2012. The complainant no. 2 is entitle to compensation of rupees 25,000/- for mental agony. The complainant no.1 is entitle for cost of Rs.10,000/- from opponents.

26. In result we passed the following order.

                               ORDER

1. RBT  Complaint No.568/2011 is partly allowed.

2.       The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest @ 18

          % p.a from the date of filling of the complaint i.e 03 /01/2012 till

          realisation to complainant no.2.

3.     The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to complainant no.  2

        as compensation for mental agony.

4.     The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to complainant

          no. 1  Consumer Welfare Association as cost.

5.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.