Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/822

Siba Prasad Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Club - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

CASE NO.  822/2014

SH. SIBA PRASAD MOHANTY,

R/o 9A, HUMAYUN PUR,

SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE,

NEW DELHI-110029.                                                        …..Complainant

VERSUS

THE MANAGER

COUNTRY CLUB INDIA LTD.

ADD-2^ND FLOOR, SHOP NO.-6,

CITY SQUARE MALL,

RAJOURI GARDEN,

NEW DELHI-110027.                                                        …..Opposite Party-1

 

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

THE COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LTD.

ADD-AMRUTHA CASTLE, 5-9-16,

SAIFABAD, SECRETARIAT,

HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH.                                …..Opposite Party-2

O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

          The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly the facts are that the complainant received a call on 22.05.2014 from OPs executive and after that executive visited complainant office and explained to him about various plan for membership particularly a plan for 5 years of vacations and also mentioned about 6 nights and 7 days vacation offer for Rs. 60,000/-. The complainant was also told that if he purchased the same he would be given first year air-tickets as a compulsory gift and OP would also provided complainant to celebrate important days i.e. complainant’s birthday, his wife and children’s birthday and also the anniversary day by sending one flower bouquet, one cake and a wine bottle to his residence for five years in each occasion. Executives also informed complainant that OP is going if complainant would purchase the plan before 31.05.2014. It is further averred in the complaint that on 31.05.2014 executive of OP visited residence of complaint and asked him to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards five years vacation membership which would be in 24 EMIs of Rs. 2083.33 per month. Accordingly on 31.05.2014 complainant made payment of Rs. 50,000/- and purchased the plan. The complainant thereafter made several calls and wrote e-mails to OP requesting them to cancel the plan and refund the amount because he was not interested in the membership, but the OP did not refund the amount.  Hence, the present complaint for refund the membership amount with interest and compensation.

          OP filed reply by denying all the contents of the complaint. It was stated that the name of OPs has now been changed to M/s Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd w.e.f. 27.11.2014. It is further stated that complainant himself visited office of OP by his own free Will and became club member after going through the terms and conditions of the membership agreement. The complainant was allotted a membership No. CCDL10CLUB18671. The complainant’s was subject to payment of AMCs to be came as eligible for a host of benefits for lifetime and was entitled to have access to all CCIL owned clubs across India to avail food/bar facilities, events, functions, indoor-outdoor games facilities etc. It is further stated that no promises about wine, cake and bouquet what so ever were even made by OP. It is further stated that the membership fees deposited by complainant was non-refundable as clearly mentioned in the registration form which was duly signed by the complainant after knowing the terms and conditions and thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint on oath.  On the other hand, OP Mr. Bharat Reddy, Legal Officer filed affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the written statements on oath.

          We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

          The controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow compass. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant has sought club membership of OP on payment of Rs. 50,000/- to avail vacation. The case of the OP on the other hand is that the registration fees of Rs. 50,000/- is non-refundable. The membership form which has been duly signed by the complainant, it contains the aforesaid conditions and one of the clauses lays down which clause that the money paid for membership would be non-refundable. It is now well settled law that when a contract has been signed between the parties, the terms and conditions mentioned therein shall be given the preference. No condition shall be added or subtracted and contract shall be given an ordinary meaning. Since, the application seeking membership has been signed by complainant it can be presumed that complainant was well aware of this postulation mentioned in the membership.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Export Credit Guarntee Corpn. Of India Ltd.  Vs.  Garg Sons International 2013 STPL (Web) 36 SC, held as under:

“It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any word.  It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer.  Therefore, the endeavor of the court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. (Vide: M/s/ Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010)10 SCC 567).”

 

“Thus, it is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the grab of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exception can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement.” 

The complainant totally failed to pin point any kind of deficiency on the part of OP. Therefore, the complaint devoid of any merit is dismissed.

File be consigned to Record Room.

          Copy of Order be given as per rules.

          Announced this _______24TH____April, 2019.

 

(K.S. MOHI)                                                                             (PUNEET LAMBA)

PRESIDENT                                                                                  MEMBER