Case study: Nirmal Kumar Pandey had enrolled under a scheme formulated by Country Club (India) Ltd and Amrutha Real Estate had outlined its marketing scheme for marketing golf club membership along with sale of plots. Pandey was shown a brochure for a plot in 'Country Kuteeram Ventures' at Yadagirigutta in Nalagonda district, entitling him to membership at the club.
Pandey bought three plots at 150 sq yards each, with a payment made in full via credit card. HAe also deposited Rs 10,000 towards charges for development/betterment, registration and three ye ars' maintenance. He was told registration formalities would begin soon but neither was the plot registered in his name nor was possession handed over.
Pandey sent a legal notice and filed a complaint before the Hyderabad District Forum. Country Club offered to settle by paying Rs 1.2 lakh and offering four plots at Yashwantpur Village in lieu of the earlier bookings. Pandey accepted the offer and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed. The MoU also provided that Pandey would pay Rs 10,000 towards development and registration of each plot. Country Club agreed to pay Rs 12 lakh in liquidated damages in case of default to execute the sale deed and register the plots. Since the dispute was amicably settled through the MoU, the complaint was withdrawn. But when Country Club defaulted again, Pandey filed another complaint against the club, its promoters and directs. Country Club said that those who enrolled as members were being offered free plots. Since the plots were free, the Club contended that the complaint was not maintainable.
The District Forum directed the Club to complete the venture, 'Golf Village', and register the four plots in Pandey's name. Alternatively, it directed the Club to pay Rs 12 lakh, awarding Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as costs. The Club challenged this before the Andhra Pradesh State Commission, which dismissed the appeal. It then approached the National Commission, arguing that Pandey had withdrawn his first complaint so a second one was not maintainable. It added that since four plots had been bought, this should be seen as a commercial transaction, which would oust consumer fora jurisdiction.
In its order dated April 22 2014, the Commission said a consumer complaint could be maintained as Country Club is in the business of marketing, purchasing and selling golf club membership with plots. While Pandey's first complaint was in respect of plots booked, the second was for failure to abide by the MoU. So withdrawal of the first complaint would not prohibit filing of the second. The Commission upheld the order passed in Pandey's favour.
Conclusion: A consumer can seek compensation when club and resort memberships turn out to be illusory.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e mail is jehangir.gai.articles@hotmail.com)
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Complaint valid if club incentive to boost membership is illusory, consumer court says
Dengan url
http://cegahkeropostulang.blogspot.com/2014/05/complaint-valid-if-club-incentive-to.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Complaint valid if club incentive to boost membership is illusory, consumer court says
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Complaint valid if club incentive to boost membership is illusory, consumer court says
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar