State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Ramesh K.Shrivastav, Flat No.B-2, ... vs 1. Amrutha Estate, No.478, Ist Floor, ... on 12 June, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU.R.REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.NO.456/2011
(As against the order in CC.No.52/2009 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South) DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2013 Mr.Ramesh K.Shrivastav, Flat No.B-2, KGR Mahadev Flats, No.3, Vembuli Amman Kovil Street, M/s.S.Baskaran Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 078.
Counsel for Appellant/ Complainant
-vs-
1. Amrutha Estate, No.478,1st Floor, 1st Main Road, 1st Stage, Indira Nagar, Bangalore 560 038 Having its Registered office at 8-2-703, Amrutha Valley Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 560
074.
2. The Country Club ( India) Ltd, Rep.by Chairman and Managing Director, Amrutha Castle, No.5-9-16 Saifabad, Opp.to Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 083.
3. The Amrutha Estate Chennai Branch, Represented by Local Representative M/s.S.Natarajan No.78, Read Diamond, Counsel for Respondents / Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032. Opposite parties The Appellant as the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to register two separate gift deeds with correct details for plot Nos.328 & 329 and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant / complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.52/2009 dated 28.02.2011.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.4.2013, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant being the member of the 2nd opposite party by paying Rs.22,500/- became Life Master Card Member. Subsequently by paying another Rs.10,000/- each for two plots as Anniversary offer to members, the membership was upgraded in the year 2005 and subsequently by offering on payment of Rs.90,000/- the membership is upgraded to Mr.Super Cool from Mr.Cool by offering certain privileges and thereby a balance of Rs.10,000/- was demanded for maintenance and registration charges for each plot. On 17.08.2006, one of the Executives of the first opposite party handed over a common registered gift deed for the two plots, but the complainant refused to accept the same as the name of the complainant was wrongly mentioned but the opposite party not registered the plots and rectify the mistakes. Hence, the complainant came forward with this consumer complaint.
3. After an enquiry the District Forum by accepting the contention of the opposite parties found that they have not committed any deficiency in service by dismissing the complaint.
4. We have heard both sides arguments gone through the materials placed before us. From the averments of both sides it is find that the complainant was offered Super cool membership by accepting to pay Rs.90000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- with affiliation to RCI and as per the agreed terms two plots were allotted and registered on behalf of the first opposite party and doing so the name was wrongly mentioned as Shrivatsav instead of Ramesh K.Srivatsav and this mistake was not rectified and stated to have taken steps to amend the same. The complainant s prayer for reliefs are concerned that to register two separate gift deeds with correct details and pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs.
5. The District Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved that he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as per the demand to avail the privilege and only paid Rs.90,000/- under Ex.A6 and not produced the receipt for Rs.10,000/- even though receipt number was mentioned and thereby the prayer of the complainant to restore all the complimentary offers cannot be accepted. So, with this finding we are in agreement and thereby there was no deficiency in service in this regard. However the learned counsel for the complainant prayed regarding the rectification in the deed executed by the opposite party in view of the privilege membership directions in this regard to be given. While considering this prayer since two plots were executed by way of single deed on the basis of power of attorney under Ex.A8 and since now it cannot be split into two separate deeds unless the deed already executed to be cancelled and separate deeds to be executed which may cause hardship to the opposite parties. No prejudice would be caused to the complainant because of holding single deed for two plots. However as far as the mistake crept in the name of the complainant in the register it could be rectified by way of execution of rectification deed for which direction could be given.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by directing the opposite parties to execute the necessary rectification deed regarding the correct name of the complainant, regarding the plots registered in favour of the complainant.
No order as to costs in the appeal.
A.K.ANNAMALAI R.REGUPATHI JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX ; YES / NO VL/PJM/D;/ORDERS