Order No. 19 dt. 05/12/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being attracted by the Ops in respect of the advertisements given by them, the complainant expressed his desire to become the member of the OP. He was assured that there will be a provision of the new construction of the swimming pool inside the club, on getting such information and assurance both verbally and written that the swimming pool will be completed by December,2010 or within January, 2011. The complainant paid a deposit of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant thereafter became the member of Country Club with general standard clauses of the said organisation and it was agreed subject to condition from OP no.1 that swimming pool will be constructed as per schedule indicated above. In spite of expiry of several years the complainant found that the swimming pool was not constructed in front of the complainant’s residence. As such the complainant demanded the amount of Rs.55,000/-. The complainant filed this case praying for refund of Rs.55,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for sufferings and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The OP filed a written version whereby the Ops denied all material allegations of complaint. It was stated that the complainant after going through the contents of the agreement accepted the membership and paid the membership fees. The complainant was duty bound to comply with all terms and conditions of the said agreement and non-performance of duty and obligation on the part of both the parties as a case of violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant obtained membership worth Rs.81,000/- and he paid only Rs.55,000/- and after getting 15% discount the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.69,000/-. As such the complainant had not paid the amount of Rs.14,000/-. Complainant also failed to pay the annual membership charges of Rs.4,000/- per annum. Since the complainant failed to honor the agreement The complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for . In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the OP prayed for dismissal of the case. Now the question is
- whether the complainant took the membership;
- whether the Ops agreed to provide a swimming pool for enjoyment of the swimming pool by the members;
- whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops
- whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for;
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that in view of the advertisements given by the Ops particularly for providing swimming pool which will be situated just on the front side of the residence of the complainant being convinced with the said proposal of the Ops for construction of swimming pool, the complainant accepted the membership whenever it was found that the swimming pool was to be constructed. The complainant was assured that it will be completed within 2011 and first part of 2012 but whenever the said construction was not made, the complainant demanded the money but he was not entertained by the Ops for which the complainant had to file this case.
The Ld. Lawyer for the Ops argued that the complainant failed to pay the total amount of Rs.69,000/- and also failed to pay yearly membership for Rs.4,000/-. Therefore the complainant will not be entitled to get any benefit accrued to a member. In support to the said contention Ld. Lawyer for the Ops relied on some decisions passed by different Forums.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant being attracted to have a swimming pool in front of his residence, we took the membership of the Ops. But whenever he found that the swimming pool was not constructed in spite of given assurance by the Ops., the complainant demanded the money which he paid for becoming the member of Club of the Ops. But unfortunately the OP did not comply with the assurance given by them for construction of a swimming pool and on the contrary demanded the membership subscription which clearly established the fact that there was unfair trade practice and also there was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
Considering all these aspects we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered
that the case no.42 of 2014 is allowed on contest against the Ops. OP nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs.55,000/- deposited by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- for sufferings and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost. OPs are directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
