State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Country Vacationsa Division Of ... vs T.L.N.Shastry, S/O.Late ... on 26 April, 2010
FA BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.1819/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.246/2006 DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD. Between: 1. M/s.Country Vacations, (A division of Country Club ( India) Ltd., Rep. by its authorized Signatory Corp.Office Flat No.306, 3rd floor, Skill Spectrum Building, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2. The Executive (Owner Relations) M/s.Country Vacations (A division of Country club ( India) Ltd., Regd.Office:6-3-1219, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016. Appellants/ Opp.parties. And 1. T.L.N.Shastry, S/o.late Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 65 years, 2. Smt.Alivelu W/o.T.L.N.Sastry, Aged about 57 years. Both R/o.12-11-1504, Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. Respondents/ Complainants 3. The Manager, R.C.I.India Pvt. Ltd., 208 and 209, Brigade Gardens, 19, Church Street, Bangalore-560 001. Respondent/ opp.party No.3 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Rajesh Jaiswal Counsel for the Respondents:Mr.Y.V.Narsimha Charyulu-R1 & R2 Ms.Tara Sharma-R3. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN (Typed to the dicatation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.246/2006 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants entered into a purchase agreement on 21st August, 2002 with opposite party No.1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, for purchase of Resort, unit type, season and purchase price and make them ready by the end of March, 2002 after receipt of the total purchase price. The complainants submitted that according to the agreement, he will be issued a Membership certificate in respect of the weekly period(s) referred in the agreement relating to the apartment type and apartment number. The complainants submitted that they paid total purchase price and administration charges which costs Rs.86,000/- i.e. purchase price Rs.76,000/- plus administration charges Rs.10,000/- vide receipt Nos.007588 and 007565 on 25th and 23rd August, 2002 respectively while entering into purchase agreement. They further submitted that even though three years lapsed, opposite parties neither sent Membership certificate as per clause 5 of the agreement or any intimation regarding the status of the venture at Medchal, Hyderabad. The complainants visited opposite parties office and also sent registered letters on 19-5-2005 and 16-1-2006 to opposite parties to cancel the Membership and refund the deposit amount. They further submitted that opposite party no.3 sent a circular mentioning the Holiday planner for the year 2003-2005 on 4-3-2003.
The complainants submitted that the opposite parties failed to fulfill the commitment given vide purchase agreement dated 21-8-2002 nor sent any Membership certificate due to which the complainants faced lot of inconvenience and their hard earned money was help up with the opposite parties without gaining simple interest and that they are not interested to take unit at Medchal, Hyderabad or any place in India. They submitted that they made several visits to refund the money and alleging deficiency in service, they approached the District Forum for refund of Rs.86,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment, together with compensation of Rs.40,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed counter and contended that the complaint is not maintainable and submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation. They admitted that they had entered into purchase agreement with the complainant on 21-8-2002 wherein the owner of the Resort i.e. opposite parties 1 and 2 agreed to develop AMRUTHA DECASA at Medchal and further agreed that in the event the apartment not being available at the timeshare purchased by the purchaser, the owner shall arrange another similar type of apartment and that the purchaser shall have right to sell, rent or bequeath the timeshares purchased under the agreement. The alternate resort, namely, HOTEL AMRUTHA CASTLE, which is affiliated to respondent No.3 was made available as alternative accommodation till the construction of AMRTUHA DECASA is completed. They further submitted that they issued VLM card for life membership in the country club as well as a card was issued by RCI to the complainant and hence it is not correct to state that Membership was not issued and it is for the members to utilize the facilities at country club as well as weekly holidays once in a year in the Home Resort or other resorts which are affiliated to opposite party No.3.
The membership in respect to RCI was sent to opposite party No.3 in the event of the apartment not being ready and that opposite party no.3 had made alternate arrangements in AMRUTHA Castle. They submitted that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice and that they never agreed to return back the amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite party No.3 filed reply stating that AMRUTHA DECASA developed by opposite parties is not at all affiliated with opposite party No.3 and as such the complainants are not eligible to become members of RCI. As a standard practice on receipt of list of new members from its affiliated resort, RCI enrolls them as RCI members allotting them membership number and card number under the name and number of affiliated resort and on receipt of such request from opposite parties 1 and 2 submitting new list of members of its resort AMRUTHA CASTLE which is affiliated with RCI, two years membership was granted to the complainants in AMRUTHA CASTLE commencing on November, 11, 2002 and the said fact is clearly evidenced on perusal of circular issued by RCI on March, 4, 2003. The complainant has misguided the Forum to show that their membership was granted in respect of the Resort Amrutha Castle which is affiliated with RCI. The membership of the complainant was never renewed during the period of two years and RCI was never approached by the complainants seeking their services with regard to exchange and submitted that there is no deficiency on their part. It further submitted that it had received payment of Rs.4,750/- from opposite parties 1 and 2 towards two years RCI membership to the complainants in respect of the Resort Amrutha Castle and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A12 and B1 and B2 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund Rs.86,000/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment also to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.
The complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.
Respondents filed their written arguments. It is the case of the complainant No.1 that he entered into purchase agreement on 21-8-2002 with opposite party no.1 for holiday resort which construction would be completed by March, end 2002.
As per clause 5 of the purchase agreement, they will be issued a Membership certificate within 30 days of the date of the agreement, with respect to the weekly periods referred to in the agreement relating to the apartment type and number. The complainants paid the total purchase price of Rs.76,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards administration charges, but even after a lapse of 3 years, the opposite parties neither sent the allotment letter or certificate inspite of correspondence made by the complainants on 19-5-2005 and 16-1-2006 requesting to cancel the membership or refund the deposit amount.
It is the case of the opposite parties that in the event of Amrtha Decasa at Medchal not being available, they would arrange another similar type of apartment and they suggested the alternate resort namely, Hotel Amrutha Castle till the completion of Amrutha Decasa.
Opposite parties issued VLM card for life membership in the Country club as well as card issued by RCI. It is for the members to utilize at the country club as well as weekly holidays once in a year in the home resort or other resorts which are affiliated to opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.3 filed reply stating that Amrutha Decasa is not affiliated to it and that the standard practice is on receipt of list of new members from its affiliated resort, RCI enrolls them as RCI members allotting them Membership number and card. RCI had just received payment of Rs.4750/- from appellants towards 2 years RCI to the complainants in respect of Amrutha Castle.
The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties contended that clause 7 of the agreement states that in the event of the apartment not being available at the time share purchased by the purchaser, they shall arrange another similar type of apartment and accordingly they made alternate arrangement at Amrutha Castle, Hyderabad. He further contended that opposite parties issued VLM card for life membership in the country club. It is also an admitted fact that the construction of Amrutha Decasa was not completed as per the time stipulated in the agreement and in the absence of any evidence to substantiate that the complainant was compensated with alternate arrangement, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2. We are of the considered view that it is for the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 who entered into an agreement with the complainants to make arrangements, if any, and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.3. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Ex.A7 which is the letter dated 18-9-2002 that they are offering 3 years facilities of the health club at country club from 24-9-2002 to 23-9-2005. This letter only confirms the offer of the health club at the country club and has nothing to do with the alternative arrangements being made to the complainants. The learned counsel also relied on Ex.A4 which is with respect to the weeks in Amrutha Castle circulated by RCI, i.e. opposite party No.3.
Ex.A6 letter is addressed by opposite parties 1 and 2 to the complainant stating that since Amrutha Decasa, Mechal is under development and is expected to be operational by March, 2003, they will be provisionally allotting RCI membership at Amrutha Castle after completion of full payment. It is not in dispute that the complainants have made the full payment. We find force in the contention of the complainants that AMRUTHA DECASA is a Spanish type of village spread over 200 acres with luxury Golf course, a club house, swimming pool, theatre, an artificial lake and a helipad whereas Amrutha Castle is not an equivalent alternative resort. There is no evidence on record to substantiate that the complainants were given equivalent resort arrangement at an alternative resort along with the Membership certificate. The respondents/complainants have lost the right to sell, rent or bequeath the time share purchased under the agreement. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is deficiency of service on behalf of the appellants. Since the appellants/opposite parties have not complied with the terms of the agreement, the complainants sought for refund of the amount paid which the District Forum has awarded. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.26-4-2010