<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 29th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1464/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Kiran,S/o H.Bylappa Raju,Aged 24 years,Residing at Sanjiveeni,Vinayakanagar, Habhugodi,Bangalore – 560 099.Advocate – Sri.NaveenNanda D.T.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Country Club (India) Ltd.,Regd. Office: “Amrutha Castle”,5-9-16, Saifabad, Opp. Secretariat,Hyderabad – 500 063.2. The Country club,BangaloreAdministrative Office,# 675, 9th ‘A’ Main, 1st Stage,Indiranagar,Bangalore – 560 038.Advocate – Sri.S.M.Manjunatha<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.1,77,500/- with interest and pay some compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP with regard to the benefits provided to the members who takes up the membership to KOOL-1000. Wherein OP promised to allot a plot at coconut grow, Tumkur, Phase III at the cost of Rs.1,25,000/-. Complainant thought of becoming the member of the KOOL-1000 and paid Rs.75,000/- to the OP. Thereafter some how OP failed to register the site as promised in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. On insistence OP came forward to allot a site at phase IV of Bagepalli, which is not at all developed one. Complainant was not agreeable for the same, hence he called upon the OP to refund whatever the amount he has paid along with interest. When his request went in futile he even got issued legal notice on 30.05.2008, again there was no response. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP Mr.KOOL member is bound to know the terms and conditions of the said scheme. The plot that is going to be allotted is only a complimentary one for that within 30 days from the date of becoming the member, member is required to pay registration charges, stamp duty, other miscellaneous expenses. But complainant failed to perform his part of contract in spite of the repeated reminders issued by the OP. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other eligible members were provided with the said plot at phase III in Tumkur in Coconut Grow. Now no such plots are available at coconut grow. Hence OP came forward to offer a plot near Bagepalli but complainant is not agreeable to receive the same. Under the circumstances no fault lies with the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint are false and frivolous. Complainant has extensively used the benefits under the said KOOL - 1000 card scheme but still has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant become the member of KOOL – 1000 scheme floated by the OP wherein OP promised to give a complimentary plot at phase III Tumkur, coconut grow. Complainant being impressed with the said additional offer of OP took KOOL -1000 became the member and paid Rs.75,000/-. OP has not disputed the receipt of the said amount of Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter some how OP failed to register a plot in favour of the complainant as promised. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to perform its part of contract and keep up the promise went in futile. Hence he got issued legal notice. Copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response. Under the circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is contended by the OP that every member who becomes the member of the said KOOL - 1000 scheme is bound to know the terms and conditions. The said member is required to pay the registration charges, stamp duty and other miscellaneous expenses with regard to the registration of the plot which is a complimentary one within 30 days but complainant failed to perform his part of contract. No such documents is produced by the OP to substantiate this defence which binds the complainant to pay the so called registration and stamp duty charges to be paid with in 30 days from the date of becoming the member. Under the circumstances the defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk their responsibility and obligation.<br /> <br /> 9. As it is there is no proof that OP completed the said coconut grow phase III scheme at Tumkur and the so called plots and layout is approved by the concerned statutory authority. In absence of such proof the bare and vague allegation of OP that it is not at fault rather can’t be believed. OP has come up with the alternative defence that it is prepared to allot a plot at Bagepalli phase IV. Whether that phase - IV is approved by the statutory authority, whether such plots are available free from encumbrances at the disposal of the OP is also not known. So that offer also appears to be an eye wash tainted with crocodile tears just to save their skin out of sin.<br /> <br /> 10. Complainant invested his hard earned money of Rs.75,000/- but unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount for all these years must have accrued wrongful gain to itself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Here we find deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from January 2008 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />