Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 67 days is condoned. 2. This Revision Petition has been preferred by the Complainant under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against the order 24.08.2017 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 81 of 2014 against CC No. 471 of 2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1 Hyderabad (for short “the District Forum”). The facts in brief are that the Complainant was invited by the 1st Opposite Party to join as a Life Member and was told that with the life membership in the first Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as “the Club”) she would be allotted a residential plot admeasuring 150 sq. yards in the second Opposite Party venture. Based on the assurances given by the Opposite Parties she joint as a Member in the Club and paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- on 05.12.2007. She was allotted Membership No. MNLM-3601. The second Opposite Party issued a letter of allotment dated 14.12.2007 to the Complainant along with the tentative lay-out plan intimating that the plot No. 4175 admeasuring 150 sq. yards as per the scheme was allotted in her name. The Complainant was informed that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was to be paid towards development/betterment and maintenance charges for laying all internal roads, electricity, water and sewage facilities. It was averred that the Complainant visited the proposed venture and observed that there was no approach road at all to see the plots, nor were the employees present to show the location. The alleged venture was looking like a forest and from the date of allotment till the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. till 2012 the position was the same as it was in the year 2007 when the amount was paid. Despite several requests the Opposite Parties could not inform the Complainant regarding the development of the said venture. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, Complainants sought refund of the amount paid by her i.e. Rs.40,000/- but there was no response. A legal notice was issued on 06.04.2012 seeking refund of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 05.12.2007 till the date of realization, but there was no response. Hence the Complaint seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid along with interest, compensation and costs. 3. The Opposite Parties filed their Written Version stating that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- paid by the Complainant on 05.12.2007 was towards part payment of the membership fee which is not refundable and that the total amount was Rs. 75,000/- and the balance of Rs. 35,000/- was to be paid within 30 days which the Complainant had failed to pay. It was admitted that a letter of allotment dated 14.12.2017 for plot No. 4175 admeasuring 150 sq. yards was issued to the Complainant and a request was also made to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards development/betterment and maintenance charges. The Complainant had failed to pay the demanded amount of Rs. 15,000/- and, therefore, the Gift Deed could not be executed. The Complainant had signed the terms and conditions for allotment of a complimentary plot on 05.12.2007 after going through the terms and conditions and, therefore, does not have any right to demand any registration. The plot was to be registered within 18 months from the date of fulfillment of membership fee, completion of legal formalities, subject to payment of the development charges. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their behalf and they seek dismissal of the Complaint with costs. 4. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant had not paid the total sale consideration and also did not pay the development charges and, therefore, she cannot ask for refund of the amount paid after remaining silent for five years and issuing a legal notice dated 06.04.2012. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission which concurred with the findings of the District Forum observing as follows:- “12(i) The contention of the appellant/complainant is that when she visited the site of allotment, there was no approach roads and the site was not developed as assured by the opposite parties and since there was no development and no response from the respondents/opposite parties she did not pay the amount and hence she is entitled for refund of the amount. (ii) The respondents/opposite parties rebutted the same contending that since the appellant/complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/- out of Rs. 75,000/- towards membership fee nor registration fee and development charges of Rs. 15,000/- despite allotment of plot, hence she has no right to claim refund of the amount. Further, as per clause 8 of application the complainant has no right to demand refund the amount. (iii) We have perused clause 8 of the application which reads follows:- ‘This is a Limited and exclusive offer for membership. In case the application is not accepted by the Board of Directors, the application money will be refunded within 90 days from the date of rejection of application. In case full amount of membership fee is not remitted within 6 months from the date of allotment of membership, then money remitted till then would be forfeited by the club and membership allotted if any would be cancelled.’ Admittedly the appellant/complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.75,000/- towards membership fee. Perusal of the application shows that there was signature said to have been subscribed by the appellant/complainant. When she did not pay the entire amount, she would not become a member. When she did not become a member, she has no right to claim for refund of the amount as per above clause. Further, she did not pay the betterment charges and also registration charges within the stipulated time. The complainant did not fulfil her obligation on her part. However, it may be true that the venture was not developed as promised by the respondents/opposite parties but the appellant/complainant did not pay the developmental charges. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant that the respondents/opposite parties offered fully developed venture with all amenities. The above facts infer that there are no reasonable grounds in favour of the appellant/complainant to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.” 6. Heard both the parties. On 30.01.2019 a suggestion was made by the Bench to the Respondents to settle the matter and the matter was adjourned to 04.02.2019 and then to 05.02.2019 to avail instructions. However, there was no representation from the side of Respondents on 05.02.2019 and the matter is being decided on merits. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards membership fee and also that a complimentary gift plot was offered to the Complainant. For better understanding of the case, the Letter of Allotment dated 14.12.2007 is reproduced as under:- “To Mr./Mrs. Chalta Ramadevi MNLM- 3601 Dear Sir/Madam, We are pleased to confirm the allotment of Plot No. 4175 admeasuring 150 sq. yards. as per the scheme evolved by Country Club India Ltd., at Golf Village (Birdie-IV). As you are aware that you have to remit an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) for the plot by demand Draft favouring AMRUTHA ESTATES, payable at Hyderabad, towards Development/Betterment charges, Registration charges of your plot and maintenance charges for 2 ½ Years. The Betterment and Development charges include laying of Internal roads, Electricity, Water and Sewerage facilities. We hereby also undertake to register the above mentioned plots in your name/your nominees within 18 months from the date of allotment letter subject to fulfillment of membership fee of Country Club.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is observed that the plot number and the area has been clearly specified and it is also stated that this plot is being offered as per the scheme evolved by the Club. Hence the membership and the offer of the complimentary plot are to be read together since there is a specific pleading in the Complaint that the Complainant was invited to take the membership and was attracted by the scheme since she was being offered a plot if she becomes a life member. Both the Fora below have given an observation that the Complainant had asked for refund after five years of the date of the allotment letter. The Fora below have wrongly observed that the Complaint had kept quiet for five years. It is observed that there was no development on the plot for five years and it was only thereafter that the Complainant had requested for refund of the money and also got issued a legal notice; when the Respondents did not cancel the allotment, the cause of action is a continuous one. The question which is for consideration here is whether the Complainant’s plot was cancelled on account of the non-payment of the development charges. There is a specific pleading that there was no approach road and the site was not developed and, therefore, she did not pay the development charges. It is pertinent to note that the Respondents did not file any documentary evidence to substantiate that the development had indeed taken place even after five years as on the date of filing of the Complaint. The State Commission has wrongly observed that the Complainant had no right to claim refund of the amount paid. The fact remains that the Complainant had chosen to become a Member of the Club only because there was also a complimentary gift offer of the plot. The claim for refund is only because the Complainant was attracted by the huge advertisement given by the Opposite Parties and joined as a member in the Club by paying a huge amount of Rs. 40,000/- believing that the Respondents would provide facilities as promised by them and also allot the plot in her favour. Throughout the Complaint the averment was only that due to non-development of the venture in which the plot was allotted to the Complainant that she had sought refund. The Respondents by inviting the Complainant with this free complimentary gift and also giving a membership and an allotment letter at the time of payment of amount towards membership fee and thereafter not developing the said plot even after five long years constitutes deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice. Luring the purchasers by offering a gift and floating schemes, where the promises are not being kept amounts to unfair trade practice and is deprecated. 8. For all the afore-noted reasons, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents and the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the filing the Complaint till the date of realization together with costs of
Rs. 5,000/-. | 
