State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Country Vacations Through Its ... vs S. Appala Swamy S/O. Late S. K. Naidu on 27 November, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1199/2025
(Against the Order dated 15th May 2025 in Appeal SC/36/A/234/2020 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Telangana)
WITH
NC/IA/11091/2025 (STAY)
M/S. COUNTRY VACATIONS Through its Managing Director Amrutha castle
PRESENT ADDRESS - 5-9-16, SAIFABAD, OPP. SECRETARIAT,
HANUMAKONDA,TELANGANA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
S. APPALA SWAMY S/o. Late S. k. Naidu
PRESENT ADDRESS - PLOT NO 227, PHASE II, ROAD NO 14, SKETH COLONY, ,
SECUNDERABAD, KUSHAIGUDA , HYDERABAD,TELANGANA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
MR. SHIBU DEVASIA, ADV
DATED: 27/11/2025
ORDER
DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
1. The brief facts of the case as are that the respondent / complainant/S. Appala Swamy (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') after being allured, confused and forced by the officials / manager of the petitioner / opposite party-M/s Country Vacations (hereinafte referred to as 'the opposite party') and induced by its advertisement/brochure fo Membership @ Rs.1,90.000/- vide which promising for providing several benefits including complementary sale of plot of 150 sq. yds.. and in that process a solicitation call was received from one of the personnel of the opposite party on 08.03.2018 informing that the complainant was one of the lucky winners of three gifts and asked to visit their office fo visual presentation on 09.032018, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party thereby so many promises of various other benefits and facilities including holiday packages to Switzerland, Italy, England Paris, Tokyo with a first air flight trip free of cos and other complimentary benefits of free transport, club facilities and weekend dinners were made, the complainant paid Rs.1,95.000/-through his HDFC card towards subscription of the club-membership and was forced to sign on the agreement papers Subsequently, the complainant received a letter with Agreement of Sale of Plot No. 1891 admeasuring 150 sq. yds in the project 'Sagar Sundaravan, situated at Pasunur Village Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District', and he was also assured to register the said plot in favour of the complainant on payment of Rs.1,49,000/- to Vendor no.1 mentioned therein the owner of the land, and Rs.59,000/- to Vendor No.2, the opposite party itself Acknowledging the receipt of the payment of Rs.55,000/- from the complainant, the opposite party offered Membership Number CVHYD 5 CLUB 249812 on 09.03.2018.
1.1 Further, another letter dated 20.06.2018 was sent to the complainant intimating therein that plot no.1891 was allotted to the complainant, on payment of Rs.1,40,000/- towards part payment and the possession thereof would be handed over only on payment o balance amount of Rs.59,000/-, while the complainant believed that the total amount o Rs.1,90,000/- paid on 09.03.2018 was in total for the Membership subscription along with a complimentary plot was also offered as promised by the opposite party itself. When the complainant was asked to pay another sum of Rs.59,000/- for registration and possession of the proposed plot, he decided to cancel the membership and requested to refund the amount of Rs1,95,000/- paid by him. The complainant visited the opposite party's office several times and also requested by writing a letter dated 21.06.2018 to cancel his membership and refund the money, but in vain. The complainant, being a retired executive engineer, after being paid his hard earned money of Rs.1, 95,000/- and having been cheated and aggrieved by the unfair trade practice of the opposite party, filed a consume complaint bearing C.C. No.386 of 2018 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressa Forum-I, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') seeking the following reliefs:
1. To refund the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- paid by the Complainant towards membership to the opposite party along with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of payment till the date of realization.
2. To pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages and loss caused to the complainant and also to pay punitive damages u/s.14(1)
(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. To award cost of Rs. 5,000/- and pass such further or ot her orders as this Hon'ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The opposite parties filed its written statement, denied all allegations stating therein after knowing the scheme and all terms and conditions of the membership, the complainan voluntarily signed sale agreement for membership dated 09.03.2018 on payment o Rs.59,000/- and subsequently on payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- executed an agreement fo sale dated 07.05.2018 for plot in the project known as SAGARSUNDARVAN admeasuring 150 sq. yards situated at Janagaon but the complainant failed to pay balance amount o Rs. 59,000/- for registration charges, stamp duty, legal consultation and incidenta expenses etc. for execution of gift deed and basic development works including sub plotting, plot and road demarcation, motor able roads and hence without paying the same the question of its registration does not arise at all. The main defence of the opposite party is that the complainant has failed to pay registration fee of Rs.59,000/- for registration charges etc. of the plot no. 1891, the said plot was cancelled but the opposite parties were willing to register another alternative plot subject to the payment of Rs. 59,000/- fo registration charges and other development works etc. 2.1 It is further stated that complainant had given sufficient time and opportunity to invoke Clause 17 of the Sale Agreement wherein cooling off period of 10 days was provided and through which he could have cancelled the membership and consequence thereof, the entire deposited amount could have been refunded within 120 days from the of rescinding only after deducting Rs.3800/-towards administration charges within 120 working days from the date of invoking but unfortunately the complainant did not opt the said cooling of period and as per Clause 19 of the membership sale agreement if a person wishes to discontinue with the membership and wants to refund the amount assigning to any reason he is permitted to do so in such case after deducting normal administrative charges of Rs 3800/- balance membership fee would be refunded, subject to the terms and conditions o clause 19 and it was clearly mentioned in clause 19 that after the stipulated period, the membership fees could not be refunded in any circumstances. It is also stated that the letter of intent to register the proposed plot in favour of the complainant was sent on 20.06.2018 to pay the balance amount and as per Clause 6 of the Agreement, the earnes money would be forfeited if any member-complainant failed to pay 25% of the sale price within 7 days from the date of application and hence there was no breach of contract on their part and the opposite party would also provide all the facilities to the complainan subject to the payment of full membership fees and AMC it is up to the complainant to utilize the facilities / benefits but the complainant asked for refund without any valid reasons which was a breach of contract and the complainant has completely failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant was not entitled for the refund of money and/or any compensation whatsoever and prayed tha the complaint be dismissed for no cause of action.
3. The District Forum vide order dated 17.12.2019 allowed the Complaint holding tha there is no material on record regarding land conversation details Panchayat approved layout, development and demarking of road, greenery, electrification etc., showing the fulfilment of premises made by the opposite party as per the letter of intent dated 18.06.2019 and also held that the opposite party has not only indulged in false and misleading representations and deceptive marking practices but also has been grossly deficiency in rendering their service. The District Forum also observed that there is no agreement at all and the contract is also void and as there was no consensus ad idem, the complainant was entitled to refund the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- paid by him towards the membership. The relevant portion of the District Forum Order dated 17.12.2019 is reproduced as under:
6) Point No.1: The first question, that arises for determination, is, as to whether a complainant was induced by the Opposite Party and the Agreement, came into existence by the alleged inducement, was voidable at the option of complainant. The complainant, being an educated person is presumed to have full understanding and knowledge of the contents of the agreement before accepting and signing the same. In the absence of any evidence to show that the complainant was induced by the O.P to enter into the sale agreement and membership subscription, the argument to this effect is devoid of merit.
However, needs to be seen if the complainant paid the amount under misrepresentation, that he will enjoy the benefits of membership, which was explained at the time of becoming a member, but in reality neither the proposed complimentary plot was registered in favour of the complaint nor any of the facilities promised by the O.P. are provided to the complainant till date. As per Clause 8 of the Agreement or Sale, it is assured by the vendors therein that the layout is approved by the local Panchayat, with demarking of roads, greenery, electricity etc., but there is no evidence on record showing such approval and developmental facilities. It is nowhere mentioned in the Club Membership agreement that the amount paid for me club membership includes earnest money for the proposed complimentary lot, whereas the O.P admittedly agrees to have received an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- towards Membership package which does not include money for the proposed plot at all, however, the Agreement for Sale dt.7/5/2018 talks about me letter of intent by the complainant to make further payments for purchase of lot acknowledging receipt of part payment Rs.1,40,000/- towards purchase of plot.
In the Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon the expression consensus ad idem is explained thus: "Agreement by two or more persons upon the same thing in the same sense." Based on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is difficult to believe whether there is a concluded contract consummating in agreement of sale of the plot between the parties in the first place, because there seems to be no consensus id idem when the offer and acceptance did not correspond (found on misunderstanding) and distinctly different expectations abundantly clear from the material on record that the consideration of Rs1,95.000/ paid by the complainant through the Membership sale agreement cannot be construed to include earnest money for the proposed complimentary pilot as there is no mention of it in the package details whereas in the letter dt.20/6/2018, the OP. claims to have received an amount of Rs 1,40.000/- from the complainant towards earnest money for the purchase of the plot No 1891 as per the Agreement of Sale/ MOU No RELMOU11982 dt. 7/5/2018 and that the complainant is liable to pay balance amount of Rs. 59,000/- for registration and possession of the said property. Since the ad idem meeting of minds of the parties is seen to be not upon the same matter (in fact there is so much ambiguity with two distinctly different purposes-membership and consequential benefits with complimentary plot vide Sale Agreement dt. 9/3/2018 vs Agreement for sale of the plot), the consideration of the letter of allotment dt. 20/6/2018 and ether correspondence exchanged by the parties become wholly Inconsequential There is thus no agreement at all, and the contract is also void.
Further there is no material on record regarding Land Conversion details Panchayat Approved layout, development and demarking of roads, greenery, electrification etc, showing the fulfilment of promises made by the OP as per the Letter of Intent towards purchase of plot dt. 18/6/2019.
In view of the above findings, this forum considers that the OP has not only Indulged in false and misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices but also has been grossly deficient in rendering their services.
7) Point No. 2 & 3 As there was no contract and the alleged contract was void as there was no consensus ad idem, the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount of Rs 1,95,000/- paid by the complainant towards membership In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed.
Accordingly, the opposite party is hereby directed as under:-
(i) The Appellant / Opposite Party shall refund the sum of Rs.
1,95,000/- to the Respondent / Complainant along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of complaint (1010.2018) till realization.
(ii) The Respondent / Complainant is at liberty to withdrawn the amount deposited to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest t hereon, after lapse of Revision period.
(iii) Time for compliance is six week from the date of receipt of this order.
4. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Distric Forum, the opposite party filed an appeal bearing F.A. No.234 of 2020 before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafte referred to as 'the State Commission') for setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissal of the complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 15.05.20025 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Order') disposed of the appeal by modifying the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order of the State Commission are reproduced herein below:-
13. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
14. The Respondent / complainant , retired Executive Engineer Claims that the Appellant / Opposite Party issued a brochure inviting public to deposit Rs.
1,95,000/- to avail membership and also they have given an offer to get a plot admeasuring 150 square yards at Pasunur Village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District 15 A perusal of the exhibits reveals the following:
Ex. Al are the payment slips evidencing the payment to Appellant/Opposite Party on 09.03.2018.
Ex. A2 is the Sale Agreement bearing application No.7931 This Agreement is dated 09.03.2018 and reveals that a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/ was paid for lifetime membership and fitness benefits. Clause-17 reads as follows "There shall be a cool off period of 10 days from the date of signing this Agreement wherein member can discontinue the agreement by paying a nominal administration charges of Rs.3,800/ to the Company. After deduction of the aforesaid amount (Rs.3,800/-) remaining amount would be refunded to the member within 120 days from the date of invoking of cool off period. For invoking the cooling off period the member shall send a written communication to the Country Club, Central Customer Care, 4 Floor, Asian Building. Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 through registered speed post or an email to [email protected]. After expiry of the aforesaid period the fee is non-refundable under any circumstance"
16 In this Agreement there is no mention of plot or the registration of a plot but the Appellant/Opposite Party has issued a letter on 09.05.2018 vide Ex. A3 and the following is communicated to the Respondent / Complainant "We are enclosing herewith a Agreement For Sale. Bearing plot No 1891 in the Project Sagar Sundarvan."
17 In the Agreement of Sale dated 07.05.2018 filed as ExA4, Clause-3 reads as follows:
"The Purchaser is aware that the time is essence of the contract and the Purchaser hereby agreed that he/she/they shall make the balance sale consideration punctually within time as agreed in the Application dated 09.03.2018 and this Sale Agreement. The Purchaser agrees to pay the above mentioned Sale Consideration as follows
(a) Rs 1,40,000/- has to be paid to Vendor-2
(b) Rs.59.000/ has to be paid to Vendor-1"
Clause-18 reads as follows:
"The parties agree that the Application cam letter of intent dated 09.03.2018 and its terms and condition recorded therein are also an integral part of the SALE AGREEMENT as if the same are set out in the body of this agreement and both the parties hereto deem to have recorded, repeated and confirmed the recitals recorded hereinabove.
.
18 The Respondent /Complainant has signed this Agreement of Sale The sale consideration of the plot was fixed at Rs. 1,99,000/-and the Respondent/Complainant had already paid the amount of Rs.1,40,000 and was to pay the balance of Rs.59,000/ towards balance amount. The Appellant/Opposite Party has addressed a letter vide Ex A6 dated 20.06.2018 te after almost three months from the date of Country Club Sale Agreement vide Ex.A2.
19 On 21.06.2018, the Respondent/Complainant addressed a letter vide ExA7 seeking refund of amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- along with interest. It is appropriate at this point to emphasise that the membership package does not include the proposed plot but the Agreement of Sale dated 07:05 2018 clearly states that the Respondent/Complainant has already paid Rs. 1,40,000/- towards purchase of plot and has to make further payments. Yet the Respondent/Complainant has specifically stated that he only paid Rs.1.95,000/-in toto. There is a total contradiction of submissions and the exhibits relied upon only highlight this contradiction further. There is no consensus between both sides and relying on exhibits that are so ambiguous and distinct is further confounding.
20. It is understood that every one of these conditions the Purchase Agreement favour the Appellant/Opposite Party and no allowance is given to the Respondent/Complainant to change his mind even while planning his vacation. He has to pay the entire membership fee which is non-refundable and also forfeit the amount paid for his vacation if the entire amount is not remitted within 45 days.
21.These Covenant do not offer the hapless Respondent/Complainant any time to decide whether he wishes to continue with the purchase of membership. Such a clause is not only unfair but the Appellant/Opposite Party are resorting to arm twisting tactics that requires to be addressed.
22. At this juncture, we refer to the principle "consensus ad idem" term that means "agreement to the same thing" or "making of minds". In this context it refers to the principle that for a contract to be legally binding and enforceable, both parties must have a clear understanding of the terms of agreement.
23. The Appellant/Opposite Party refer to Ex.12 / Ex. B) wherein they submit that oral commitments made by any sales staff cannot be honoured by the Company. But, it is visibly flouted by their staff who lure the Complainants/Customers and Induce them to avad the membership. Thus responsibility is given to the staff by the Appellant/Opposite Party and yet when it comes to the time of reneging from the agreement or seeking refund, the commitments made by the staff are not honoured. This concept of sale of club membership(s) without giving the Respondent/Complainant adequate opportunity to change his mind is most unfair and reeks of absolute force
24. The entire agreement and club membership purchase agreement does not provide the Respondent/Complainant any opportunity to seek refund. The absence of such a clause amounts to unfair trade practice and the Commission below observed these glaring discrepancies in their duty of protecting the Respondent/Complainant
25. In the result, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned order dated 17 12.2019 passed in CC.No.386/2018 by the District Commission-1. Hyderabad, with the following directions:
(i) The Appellant/Opposite Party shall refund the sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant along with interests@ 7 % p.a. from the date of complaint (10.10.2018) till realization
(ii) The Respondent/Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest thereon, after lapse of Revision period
(iii) Time for compliance is six works from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The State Commission observed that the complainant has signed the agreement of sale and the sale consideration of plot was fixed at Rs. 1,99,000/- and the complainant had already paid the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- and was to pay Rs 59,000/- towards balance amount. The opposite party has address a letter dated 20.06.2018 i.e. after almost three months from the date of Sale Agreement. The complainant thereafter on 21.06.2018 written a letter to the opposite party vide which he sought the refund of his deposited amount along with interest. It was further observed by the State Commission that admittedly the membership package does not include the proposed plot but the agreement to sale dated 07.05.2018 clearly stated that the respondent has already paid Rs. 1,40,000/- towards purchase of plot and has to make further payments. Yet the complainant has specifically stated that he only paid Rs. 1,95,000/- . It was further observed that there is totally contradiction of submissions and the documents relied upon by the opposite party and there is no consensus between both sides and relying on exhibits that are so ambiguous and distinct in further confounding. The State Commission in its impugned Order specifically observed that every conditions mentioned in purchase agreement always favours the opposite party and no allowance has been given to the complainant to change his mind even while planning his vacation as he has to pay the entire membership fee which is non refundable and also forfeit the amount paid for his vacation if the entire amount is no remitted within 45 days.
6. The opposite party being aggrieved by the impugned Order filed the present revision petition before this Commission which is under disposal and challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds amongst other that the present revision petition be allowed and the orders passed by the for a below be set aside by passing the Order of dismissing of the Complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party rather it is the complainant who did not fulfil the conditions of the sale agreement and not paid the balance amount for registration charges of plot
7. We have heard arguments advanced by Mr. Shibu Devasia, Advocates for the opposite parties at the admission stage and perused the record inter alia including the Orders passed by the fora below and the memo of petition also.
8. The counsel for the opposite party after referring the factual position argued that the impugned Order passed by the State Commission suffered from non-reasoning and the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite parties were not properly dealt in the impugned judgement and the District Forum also has passed its Order without application o minds by ignoring relevant question of law i.e. Clause 17 of the Club Sale Agreement o Membership dated 09.03.2018 and Clause 5 of applicant cum letter of intent dated 07.05.2018 which clearly depicts regarding cool off period but the complainant had failed to invoke the same during its validity period and terminating both the agreement withou assigning any reasons thereto wherein it has been categorically mentioned that that amoun paid is non-refundable under any circumstances and these facts and conditions were we within the knowledge of the complainant as he executed the Membership agreement Application cum letter of intent dated 09.03.2018 and Agreement for Sale in respect of plo dated 07.05.2018 after understanding and verifying the same. The counsel for the opposite party further argued that the State Commission has failed to consider that the responden has not brought any documentary evidence on record to prove that he has requested the opposite party for providing requisite facilities and services to which he was entitled as pe both agreements and the Order passed by the fora below is imaginary and contrary to the facts and documents as the complainant did not raise any dispute or objection and neve asked the party to show any documents regarding land conversion details, panchaya approved layout , development and demarking of road, greenery, electrification etc. at any point of time and as such the impugned Order does not sustain in the eyes of law which is liable to be dismissed and the complaint filed before the District Forum stands deserved to be dismissed being devoid of merits as both the fora below could not establish on record any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
9. From the perusal of record it is reflecting that the in para 6 of the Order of the Distric Forum has specifically observed that the complainant paid the amount as per agreement fo purchase of plot by paying the total amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the opposite party in the impression that he will enjoy the benefit of membership which was explained at the time o becoming a member but reality was that neither any complementary plot was registered in favour of the complainant nor any facilities as promised provided to the complainant till date We are also of the opinion that the opposite party did not comply with the terms and conditions executed the Membership agreement, Application cum letter of intent dated 09.03.2018 and Agreement for Sale in respect of plot dated 07.05.2018 because as pe Clause 8 of the Agreement for sale of plot dated 07.05.2018 in respect of the subject plot wherein it was assured that the Vendor / opposite party lay out of the plot is approved by the local Panchayat with demarcation of road, greenery and electricity in the surrounding area o the plot. But the opposite party has completely failed to prove on record that they were having such approvals etc. and had also provided the above facilities, as promised, to the complainant. We are agreement with the observations made by the for a below that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by no fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale dated 07.05.2018 in respect o plot in question despite of the fact that they have received an amount of Rs.1,95,000/ towards the purchase of plot wherein it talks about the letter of intent by the complainant to make further payment for purchase of plot acknowledging receipt of party payment of Rs 1,40,000/- towards purchase of plot.
10. We are of considered opinion that the District Commission has rightly observed that the there was no consensus ad idem, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs 1,95,000/- paid towards membership by referring to the principle of 'Consensus ad idem' a Latin term that means, 'agreement to the same thing' or 'making of minds'. In this context we are of the view that the State Commission has rightly referring the principles that a contract is to be legally binding and enforceable, where both parties have a clea understanding of the terms of agreement and without giving any opportunity to change his minds to the complainant whether he has to continue with the agreement or not or to seek refund of his deposited amount as such we are of the opinion that in the absence of such a clause amount to unfair trade practice and the for a below observed these glaring discrepancies in their duty of protecting the rights of the complainants and as such the impugned Order passed by the State Commission deserves to be upheld.
11. After considering the material on record, we are of the considered view that the State Commission has rightly observed that there was a clear cut case of deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. The District Forum and the State Commission have almos given concurrent findings as the State Commission vide its impugned Order by partially modifying the Order of the District Forum ordered the opposite party to refund the amount o Rs. 1,95,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date o complaint (10.10.2018) till realization and has waived off the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ imposed upon the opposite party towards damages and loss under Section 14(1) (d) of the Act as well as waiving of the cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- and scope of the revisiona jurisdicti+on is limited. It is accepted legal proposition that National Commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties like an appellate court. The Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta V United India Insurance Co Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC269 held that the scope of Revision Petition is limited and such powers can be exercised only if there is some prime facie jurisdictional error appearing in the order The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity V State Bank of India & others, AIR 2022 SC577 held as under:-
The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
12. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission which is a well-reasoned Order and does not call for any interference of this Commission and such the same is upheld. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed along with pending applications, if any.
..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER