BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 272/2014
1. M/s Country Vacations
A Division of Country Club
Of India Limited, at 6-3-1219,
Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016
Rep. by its General Manager.
2. M/s Country Vacations International
Holiday Club, Branch, Opp. Fisheries
College, Yekkureu, Kankanady Post,
Mangalore. Rep. by its Mangaer,
Mr. Akmal Pasha S/o Mr.Mohammed Dastiger,
Aged 39 years.
(By Sri. B.Keshava Murthy, Adv.,)
……….Appellants.
-Versus-
D .Srinivas Alva, A/a 56 years,
S/o Narayan Alva, Garodi Garden
Jeppu Market Road, Mangalore-574154.
(By Sri/Smt. Asha Nayak, Adv.,
……….Respondents
: O R D E R :
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated:30.12.2013 passed by Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.80/2012.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and OPs respectively as per their rankings before the District Forum.
3. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The Opposite Party No.1 is registered office and Opposite Party No.2 is the Branch located in Mangalore. The Opposite Parties running holiday clubs under the name and style of Country Vacations. At the instance of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant and his wife entered into an agreement and the said contract was one for vacation ownership of a studio flat for a period of 5years for an occupancy of 2+2 people, in this regard, the complainant has paid Rs.75,000/- with annual management charge of Rs.40/- per points rights owned and the same was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties agreed to allot plot in the name of complainant after completing all government formalities within 18 months from the full payment of membership fee and the Opposite Party had also collected Rs.20,000/- towards developmental charges in favour of M/s Amruth Estate – a sister concern of Opposite Party.
3(a) The complainant further contended that he approached the Opposite Party and requested to refund the membership amount by cancelling the membership as he was in need of money and due to non allotment of plot, but the Opposite Party told that it could cancel only after two years. Thereafter in spite of repeated requests, demands, personal visits and legal notice, the Opposite Party did not comply the demands of the complainant. Hence, the complaint.
4. After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared and contended that complainant opted for the package called studio blue DT 99/195 costing Rs.70,000/- and the complainant agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards annual administration charges and in total, the complainant has paid Rs.75,000/-. The complainant entered into agreement of our Opposite Parties’ own free will and accord and there is no compulsion or coercion exercised by Country Vacations. In spite of request and several reminders to pay stamp duty of Rs.20,000/- with regard to registration of plot in the name of complainant, the complainant failed to pay the same and hence the plot could not be registered and thereby the complainant failed to utilize any service provided by the Opposite Party. Hence, request to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency of service.
5. After trial, the District Commission, Mangalore allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.95,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Parties preferred this appeal on various grounds.
7. We have heard the arguments from Respondents. The appellant did not address his arguments.
8. Perused the appeal memo and order passed by the District Commission, Mangalore, it is not in dispute the complainant is a member of the Opposite Parties and has paid Rs.75,000/- to the Opposite Party with regard to the membership. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Party has to allot the site in favour of the complainant. But it is seen that the Opposite Parties have not allotted the site in favour of the complainant in spite of repeated request and demands made by the complainant.
9. The District Commission has clearly held after perusal of the documents and reply of the Opposite Parties to the interrogatories that the Opposite Parties have failed to provide facilities which comes under the membership and also failed to allot the site. The appellant before this Commission also failed to produce any documents to show that they were going to allot a site in favour of the complainant. Hence, it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.
10. Further, the appellant submitted that thought the complainant has paid Rs.75,000/-, the District Commission has awarded Rs.95,000/- with interest @ 12% as there is no contractual obligation on the part of appellant with the complainant to pay interest @ 12% p.a. No doubt, the Opposite Parties in spite of receipt of the amount long back, failed to give any services as agreed and allotted the plot in favour of the complainant and thereby made the complainant to suffer mental agony. The complainant did not get any yield though he has invested the money with the Opposite Party long back. Hence, the District Commission is right in awarding interest on the amount payable by the Opposite Parties. But made an error in awarding Rs.95,000/- though the complainant has failed to prove that he has paid Rs.95,000/- to the Opposite Parties, because it is an evident that the complainants have paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 22/02/2009 and same was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties. But there is no any documents produced by the complainants to show that they have paid developmental charges of Rs.20,000/- towards to the Opposite Parties. Hence, in this regard a modification is required. Further, on perusal of the order-sheet, we found that the appellant has not deposited cost of Rs.3,000/- in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission, which was imposed on the appellant during the proceedings. Hence, the appellant is liable to deposit the said amount. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:30.12.2013 passed by Mangalore District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.80/2012 is hereby modified as under:-
The appellant/Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.75,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
The appellant is directed to deposit Rs.3,000/- in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Registry is directed to recover the said amount in accordance with.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
