DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.309 of 26-10-2017

Decided on 22-05-2019

1.Kuldeep Singh Dandiwal S/o Darshan Singh R/o House No.28095-B, Street No.2, Bir Talab Road, Bathinda;

2.Gora Singh Thind Advocate S/o Leela Singh R/o Court Road, Mansa;

3.Gurdeep Singh Mann S/o Bakhtaur Singh R/o Street No.4, Court Road Mansa;

4.Resham Singh Mann S/o Boota Singh R/o Village Burj Hari, Tehsil and District Mansa;

5.Sukhpal Singh Badesha S/o Teja Singh R/o Village Burj Hari, Tehsil and District Mansa;

6.Harpal Singh Bamaal S/o Amarjit Singh R/o Village Burj Hari, Tehsil and District Mansa.

........Complainants

Versus

HBN Country Club, HBN Sunrise City, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Manisha, Member.

Present:-

For the complainants: Sh.A.S Sekhon, Advocate.

For opposite party: Sh.B.S Pitho, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainants Kuldeep Singh Dandiwal and Others (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party HBN Country Club (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly, the case of the complainants is that on 9.7.2017, they went at Mittal Mall Bathinda to watch movie Spider Man-2. After ending of movie at about 5:30 P.M, they visited opposite party for swimming. They got made entries of the vehicles i.e. Scorpio bearing No.PB-31Q-0009 and Bolero bearing No.PB-31L-8919. After getting entries of their vehicles, opposite party raised demand of Rs.200/- per head for swimming. As per instructions of opposite party, the complainants paid Rs.200/- per head, but thereafter when they went towards the swimming pool and got ready for swimming in the pool, after removing their upper cloths, the employee of opposite party came to them and stopped them from swimming stating that they are required to purchase swimming costumes i.e. swimming wear, but opposite party has not brought this condition into their notice prior to getting Rs.200/- per head as swimming charges. Even there is no such condition affixed on any of the notice board either inside the club or nears swimming pool. It amounts to unfair trade practice.

3. It is alleged that the complainants had to purchase the costumes, but same were not of proper size, rather their rate was also higher more than quality of the costumes. They raised complaint regarding non-fitting of the size of costumes, but opposite party told that no other costumes are available. Opposite party compelled the complainants to wear these costumes. The complainants objected the matter and claimed their charges return back. Opposite party refused from refunding the charges. As such, the complainants had to swim even in the un-sized swimming wears and they could not swim properly.

4. It is further alleged that there was no proper lighting and music system was closed. The complainants again raised objection regarding lighting and music system, but opposite party told that they are required repairing. There was smell from the water of swimming pool and its color was also not clear and clean. The water was required to be clear and clean in the swimming pool. The complainants also raised objection in this regard, opposite party told that changing of color and smelling of water is due to rain, but opposite party was required to change the water from time to time. The system for cleaning the water was also not working. As such, the complainants could not enjoy properly. It amounts to deficiency in service.

5. It is further alleged that there is no mentioned regarding depth of the pool and there was no precautions for swimming. Opposite party has no proper trainer in the swimming pool.

6. Further averments of the complainants are that they also took cold drinks Coca-Cola of 2 litters bottle, but opposite party issued bill without any number, pan and tin number, rather the charges against soft cold drink were more than print rate. It also amounts to unfair trade practice. Opposite party has also not followed the terms and conditions of GST and any other law of Tax. The bill is not proper and printed as per billing, rather it was on the letter pad. There were no seats for seating near the pool. The entry area of pool was slippery.

7. The complainants further alleged that they have to suffered harassment, humiliation and torturing physically and mentally. For these sufferings, they have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh each i.e. Rs.6 lakhs. They also got issued legal notice dated 18.7.2017, but to no response.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh for harassment and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

8. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In the written version, opposite party has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainants have no cause-of-action to file the complaint. They have not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The complaint has been filed with sole intention to blackmail opposite party. As such, it is liable to be dismissed. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, the complainants are not 'consumers' as defined under 'Act'. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. There are intricate questions of law and facts. The matter in issue cannot be decided in summary procedure under 'Act'. The complainants, if so advised, may approach the civil court to seek their redress. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature. As such, it is liable to be dismissed with penalty of Rs.25,000/-.

9. On merits, it is admitted that as per record, there is entry of both the vehicles in the name of Sukhpal Singh on 9.7.2017.

   It is further mentioned that charges for entering in the swimming pool area per person is of-course Rs.200/- per hour. As per rules and regulations, the swimming is allowed in the swimming pooles with costumes provided in the swimming area or customer is at liberty to bring the costumes with him. As per rules, no person can be allowed to swim in the swimming pool with undergarments worn by him/her. The swimming costumes are being sold to the customers at market rates. It is denied that the costumes available for sale in the swimming area of opposite party were not of proper size and their rate was higher.

10. It is also mentioned that as per record, four pieces of costumes were purchased at cost of Rs.800/- i.e. Rs.200/- per set. The complainants visited in the area at their own sweet will. The persons (may be complainants) enjoyed swimming in the swimming pool of opposite party. Neither any person raised objection with regard to non-fitting of the size of the costumes nor asked for return of the charges. There is complaint box, but the complainants did not drop any complaint in this box. It was peak summer season and water of the swimming pool was being filtered regularly with filter plant installed for the purpose and permitted chemical is added in the water of swimming pool regularly to avoid smell of water. The water was clear and clean. There was no such smell in the water. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

11. It is further mentioned that a board containing the instructions of swimming is displayed in the swimming area and a permanent meter indicating the depth of the swimming pool is showing therein. A trainer is always present in the swimming pool area. On the relevant date and time, the trainer was present and he gave instructions to the persons, who entered in the swimming pool area on the relevant date and time against the bill to swim in ordinary manner being not fully trained.

12. It is also pleaded that those persons (may be complainants) purchased Coke on the relevant date and time. It is denied that they purchased 2 liters bottle. It may be in small packs, which is not available in the record of opposite party. It is also denied that any extra amount was charged from the complainants or any other person. All other averments of the complainants are categorically denied. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

14. In support of their claim, the complainants have tendered into evidence photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C1); postal receipt, (Ex.C2); bill, (Ex.C3); affidavit of Kuldeep Singh Dandiwal dated 4.5.2018, (Ex.C4) and closed the evidence.

15. To rebut the claim of the complainants, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaspreet Singh Sarao dated 17.8.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of lease deed, (Ex.OP1/2) and closed the evidence.

16. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

17. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

18. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

19. From the pleadings of the parties and arguments of the complainants, it emerges that averments of the complainants are as under:-

    i) Costumes were not of proper size and rate was higher;

    ii) There were not proper light and music system;

    iii) There was smell from the water of swimming pool;

    iv) No proper trainer was present;

    v) Opposite party charged excess for Coca Cola.

    It is well settled that the complainants were required to prove their case by affirmative evidence.

20. Now, it is to be seen from the evidence produced by the complainants whether they have been able to prove their case or not. They have placed on record copy of legal notice with postal receipt, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2). These documents will not prove the allegations. Ex.C3, is bill, which can only prove that they paid Rs.1200/- as swimming charges and Rs.800/- as costumes charges and Rs.100/- for Coca Cola. There is nothing to show that costumes were not of proper size as alleged by them. They have not disclosed MRP of Coca Cola or amount highly charged. Therefore, this bill also does not prove any higher charges as alleged by them. Ex.C4, is affidavit of Kuldeep Singh, one of the complainants, which is also repetition of complaint, but there is no corroborate evidence to prove these averments.

21. For the reasons recorded above, the net conclusion is that from the evidence of the complainants, no deficiency in service is proved. Thus, complaint is without merits and hereby dismissed.

22. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

23. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    22-05-2019

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member