State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tejinder Singh Ugal vs Rajinder Gymkhana And Mahindra Club ... on 4 May, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.266 of 2015
Date of institution : 09.03.2015
Date of decision : 04.05.2015
TEJINDER SINGH UGAL, CHIEF MANAGER (RETD.), RESIDENT
OF H. NO.4, NIRMAN, NEW OFFICERS COLONY, STADIUM
ROAD, PATIALA.
.......APPELLANT-COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
RAJINDRA GYMKHANA AND MAHINDRA CLUB LTD., BARADARI
GARDEN, PATIALA, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND
HONORARY SECRETARY.
........RESPONDENT-OPPOSITE PARTY
First Appeal against the order dated
5.2.2015 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 5.2.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for directing the respondent/opposite party to restore his original Membership No.984 and permitting him permanent voting rights and to pay compensation and costs of litigation, was dismissed, as barred by time.First Appeal No.266 of 2015 2
2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that he had been permanent member of the opposite party-Club since 1992 and never defaulted in payment of the dues, in spite of his posting outside and he was treated as absentee member with monthly fee of Rs.60/-. In the year 2006 when he visited the Club, he was told that his Membership No.984 had been cancelled on the ground of non- payment of some dues. He asked for the statement of account, as he never defaulted in the payment of the dues. Then he came to know that a sum of Rs.2,000/-, which was paid by him, vide cheque dated 15.4.2005, had been misappropriated and had not been credited in his account. He had been meeting the Honorary Secretary of the Club for restoration of his membership. An assurance was given that his membership will be restored in case he pays all the dues since 2005. In view of that assurance he deposited Rs.32,842/- on 30.12.2007 with the hope that his membership would be restored. Instead of that, he was given membership No.NV (Non- Voting)-127; which was valid till 31.12.2008. There was violation of the assurance, so given to him, though he had deposited all the previous dues. He had been approaching the opposite party time and again for the restoration of his membership but all in vain. He sent reminders and registered letters dated 6.10.2006, 27.11.2007, 20.12.2008, 12.7.2009, 17.11.2011 and 21.12.2012 but received no reply to the same from the opposite party. On 21.12.2012 he sent a letter protesting its action in changing his permanent membership to non-voting membership in violation of the rules and regulations of the Club. His request was not acceded to, though the identity cards First Appeal No.266 of 2015 3 were being issued to him from time to time. On 15.5.2013 notice was sent to him by the opposite party demanding Rs.1,50,000/- for changing non-voting membership into voting membership. That demand of the opposite party is illegal. Feeling aggrieved on account of non-restoration of his original membership, he filed the complaint for the issuance of the directions mentioned therein.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing written reply before the District Forum. It did not deny that the complainant was permanent member of the Club since 1992 and that he was enrolled as non-voting member in December 2007. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that the fee is being charged on monthly basis to maintain the infrastructure of the Club. No such assurance for the restoration of the membership was ever given to the complainant. He himself had opted for non-voting membership and was enrolled as such in November 2007. No such notice for changing the non-voting membership to voting membership was sent to the complainant and such a notice was displayed on the notice board of the Club, as the EGM in its meeting held on 4.5.2013 had resorted to convert 100 non-voting members to permanent category subject to the conditions mentioned therein. There was no deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is not a 'consumer' and the complaint filed by him was not maintainable. The same is barred by limitation as due to the default of the payment, the membership of the complainant ceased in the year 2006. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
First Appeal No.266 of 2015 4
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the records of the case, which were called at the time of admission stage.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complaint was wrongly dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Fresh cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2013 when he received the notice for the change of non-voting membership to voting membership after the payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. Moreover, in view of the evidence produced on the record, it cannot be held that the complainant made default in the payment of the subscription etc. as a Member and, as such, he never ceased to be the permanent member of the Club. The District Forum committed an illegality by holding that his complaint was barred by limitation.
7. Having carefully gone through the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them before the District Forum, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation. The complainant himself has alleged in his complaint that it was in the year 2006 that he was informed that his Permanent Membership No.984 had been cancelled. The cause of action for restoration of that membership arose to him at that time. The writing of the letters First Appeal No.266 of 2015 5 or reminders for reviving the membership will not extent that period of limitation. It cannot be said that the new cause of action had accrued to him in the year 2013 when the alleged notice was sent to him for the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- for changing his non-voting membership into voting membership. It was correctly held by the District Forum that the complaint filed by him is barred by time. We do not find any ground to admit this appeal to be heard on merits and the same is dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER May 04, 2015 Bansal