Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/620/2015

Simran Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Country Club (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Paramjit Kaur Deol

02 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/620/2015
Date of Institution	:	15/09/2015
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2018

Simran Kaur wife of Gurvinder Singh, resident of M/s Gulzar Motors, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through the General Power of Attorney holder Gurvinder Singh son of Gulzar Singh, resident of M/s Gulzar Motors, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Country Club (India) Ltd., having its Regd. Office at SCO 44-45, 1^st Floor above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.     M/s Country Club (India) Ltd., #5-9-16, Opp. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500063 through its Manager.

3.     Country Condo’s Ltd. having its Regd. Office at ISR Complex, H.No.7-1-19/3, II Floor above Sovereign Industrial Ltd., Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations, in brief, are complainant is a member of OPs 1 & 2 since 2012 and her existing membership was upgraded vide memorandum of understanding dated 6.2.2014. Stated that the complainant had made total payment of Rs.5,40,000/- on the assurance of the OPs that they will provide four plots bearing No.1686, 1687, 1688 and 1690 admeasuring 600 sq. yards (i.e. 150 sq. yards each) at Sagar Sundervan. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OPs and expressed wish to see location of the said plots before paying charges for registration, but, her request was put off. Now the complainant has come to know that the plots were not the same which were agreed to be purchased/gifted and thereby OPs had cheated the complainant on the pretext of complimentary and gift plots to the existing members.  Thus, the OPs have employed unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of Rs.5,40,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
2.         OPs had contested the consumer complaint and filed their written statement.  It was averred, there was no unfair trade practice employed.  It was claimed, membership fee was non-refundable under any circumstances and membership fee is not a deposit. It is further the case, complainant was not cheated in any way and the location of the plots was apprised to her.        On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of the record, the following findings are recorded :-
5.         The crux of the allegations made in the consumer complaint is, the location of the plots was shown somewhere else while actually it was situated outside said location.  It is the case, as specifically pleaded, as a matter of fact, complainant was cheated by the OPs. If there was a deception, as in the manner the consumer complaint framed, then this matter is outside the purview of this Forum and has to be dealt with by a criminal or a civil court so as to constitute fraud or cheating. For this purpose, the parties have to be put to trial. This Forum has to go into a limited question of consumer dispute, if any, and there is unfair trade practice or say deficiency in service.
6.         A perusal of the record shows, OPs had produced Ex.R-3, a certificate issued by Tehsildar of the concerned area which shows, the land situated at survey 520,521,522,533,534,535,536,532,531,528,529,539 in Pasnoor village, Nampally Mandal of Nalgonda District, Telangana, project known as Sagar Sundervan was promoted by the OPs.  It was further certified that land was duly converted from agricultural to non-agricultural and accordingly, the residential lay out was sanctioned by Sarpanch Panchayat Secretary. It was also certified, land is adjoined to teetudu village and within 1KM distance there is school, panchayat office etc. and facilities of electricity and water are available with the said layout.  There is a presumption, public servant acts honestly in the discharge of his/her duty and the official and judicial acts are performed in regular manner.  This certification shows, the plots which were given to the complainant are full of facilities and located in the same place as per offer made.  It is also not the case, this certification pertains to some other land; rather it is the same land on which plots were carved out and intended to be complemented to the complainant on payment of certain amount.
7.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reasons to record a finding that there has been deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, we proceed to dismiss the instant consumer complaint with no order as to costs.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/05/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President