Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/10/2579
1. Mr.Umesh
Son of M.S.Ramachandra Rao,Aged about 36 years,Residing at No.14, 1st Main,Srikanteshwaranagar,Bangalore-96
BEFORE:
HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah PRESIDENT
HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini Member
HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE – 560 052.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2579/2010
PRESENT:
Sri T. Rajashekharaiah, B.A. L.L.B.,
PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M.Shivalingappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Smt. Dr. Subhashini, M.B.B.S.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT -
Mr. Umesh,
S/o M.S. Ramachandra Rao,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.14, 1st Main,
Srikanteshwaranagar,
BANGALORE – 560 096.
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTY -
1.
THE COUNTRY CLUB (INDIA) LIMITED.,
No.675, 9th ‘A’ Main,
Indira Nagar 1st Stage,
BANGALORE – 560 038.
Represented by its Managing Director.
2.
M/S AMRUTHA ESTATES,
A division of Country Club (India) Ltd., No.478, “Maha Padma”,
1st Main, Indiranagar 1st Stage,
BANGALORE – 560 038,
Represented by its Managing Director.
ORDER
1. This Complaint was filed on 12.11.2010 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder: The Complainant submits that he became a member of the Opposite Party holding Millionaire Premium Club membership No.COOL BT 646. The Complainant submits that he paid Rs.1,25,000/- towards membership charges and the Opposite Party had issued Millionaire Premium membership card to the Complainant and to his wife. The Opposite Party had promised several facilities including two sites to the Complainant, but the Opposite Party did not provide any of the facilities so far and the Opposite Party has not provided any supporting documents pertaining to the promised two sites. The Complainant further submits that the Opposite Party registered the Gift Deed in favour of the Complainant with respect to Plot No.91 in Phase-2 measuring 1633.5 sq. ft situated at Hindupur on 03.07.2008. The Complainant submits that there has been absolutely no progress or any developmental work carried out in the land allotted to the Complainant, there is no road, water, light etc. The Complainant submits that there is deficiency in service by the Opposite Party as they have failed to keep up their promise made to the Complainant. The Complainant has approached the Opposite Party several times, but the Opposite Party has threatened him with dire consequences and even tried to manhandle the Complainant. The Complainant issued a legal notice on 09.08.2009 calling upon the Opposite Party to refund the amount but the Opposite Party has failed to refund the amount.
2. The Complainant prays that the Opposite Party be directed repay the entire money of Rs.1,45,000/- paid towards membership No.COOL BT 646 with 36% interest p.a. from the date of payment, till realization. The Complainant also prays that the Opposite Party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.
3. The Opposite Party filed its version and submits that as per its promise, a complimentary plot had already been registered in favour of the Complainant vide Gift Deed dt.03.07.2008 registered as Document No.2345 registering site bearing No-91 measuring 1633 sq. ft in the year 2008. Such being the case, any order of refund amounts to cancellation of registered document and virtually amounts to overruling of the Specific Relief Act, Indian Registration Act and Suits and Valuation Act etc. The Opposite Party submits that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to order for cancellation of any registered document and as such this Complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant was not offered two sites as alleged and the Complainant has no proof of the same. As a Member of the Cool Scheme, the Complainant is entitled for only one complimentary plot measuring 1089 sq. ft. However, under a special scheme wherein the Complainant has paid membership charges through ICICI Bank and he was allotted with the plot measuring 1633 sq. ft. The Opposite Party submits that since there is no deficiency in service, the Complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Both the parties have filed their affidavit by way of evidence. At the end, this Forum heard on merits.
5. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision and they are:
(i) Whether the Complainant has established the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?
6. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Negative
ii) As per final order.
R E A S O N S
7. POINT NOs.1 & 2:- The Complainant has prayed for refund of the amount paid by him i.e., Rs.1,45,000/- to the Opposite Party towards Mr. Cool Card Membership. At the time of becoming a member of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had promised several facilities including a complimentary plot at Coconut Groove Banyan Tree, Penukonda. The Complainant admits that the Opposite Party has registered a Gift Deed in his favour on 03.07.2008. It is the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has failed to carry out any developmental work at the layout. Hence, there is deficiency in service by the Opposite Party and he has prayed for the refund of the amount paid by him. The Complainant has also contended that two more free sites were promised to him, but the Opposite Party so far has not registered the sites in his name.
8. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has submitted that all the facilities as promised has been provided to the Complainant and the Gift Deed of the complimentary free site was also done way back in the year 2008. The Opposite Party has also contended that the Complainant has been using the facilities of the Opposite Party Club and that he has failed to establish deficiency in service by the Opposite Party. On perusal of the documents produced by both the parties, it is seen that as per the promise made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant has indeed been allotted a site which was registered in his name in the year 2008. The Complainant failed to establish the alleged lack of development work by the Opposite Party. The Complainant had also alleged that he was allotted two complimentary sites, but he has not produced any documents to prove the same. In our opinion, the Opposite Party has registered one site in favour of the Complainant according to the promise made by them. Hence, there is no deficiency in service by the Opposite Party. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
This Order is pronounced on this the 30th day of March 2011.
Dr. SUBHASHINI H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah]
PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini]
Member
[HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA]
Member