Mobile View

Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer

Search
 
Cites 3 docs
Section 122 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 32A in The Registration Act, 1908
Citedby 1 docs
L.Vani W/O Jagadeshwar Reddy vs The Manager, Country Vacations ... on 11
March, 2013

Get this document in PDF

 
Print it on a file/printer
 
View the actual judgment from court

User Queries
gift deed
"membership"
development charges
quadri
thumb impression
left thumb impression
unfair trade practise
country club
finger prints

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query

Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only
if you like it.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S. Amrutha Estates vs Hmh Quadri on 17 September, 2012
 BEFORE THE A

BEFORE
THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

FA 341 of 2011 against CC

633/2010, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
  

Between:

1) The Director

M/s.
Amrutha Estates

H.No.
8-2-703, Silver Oak

Amrutha
Valley, Road No. 12

Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad
  

2) The Managing Director

The
Country Club

Premises
No. 6-3-1219

Begumpet,
Hyderabad. *** Appellants/

Opposite
Parties

And
HMH
Quadri

S/o.
HMM Quadri

RMP
Doctor,

R/o.
12-2-134

Muradhnagar,
Hyderabad-28.

*** Respondent/

Complainant

 
Counsel
for the Appellant: M/s.
S. Rajesh Jaiswal.

Counsel
for the Respondent: M/s. G. Bhasker Rao

CORAM:

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER

 

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO

THOUSAND TWELVE   Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao,
President)   ***    
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order of
the Dist. Forum directing them to refund Rs. 86,000/- paid by the
complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the
complaint till the date of realization.

             

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that appellant organization is a

company registered under the Companies Act floated various services and
collected consideration. They used to lure the customers over phone by
telling that you won the gift come to their hotel and collect the git. Op2
executive came to his house explained about allotment of plot while
booking the membership and collected various amounts in all Rs. 86,000/-
in between 1.1.2007 and 1.12.2008. He could not know where the site was
located and the price of it and when it was going to be handed over and
when he approached the Ops there was no proper response. Alleging that it
amounts to unfair trade practise and was unaware of terms and conditions
filed the complaint for refund of Rs. 86,000/- paid by him with interest @
18% p.a., from the date of payment till the date of payment together with
compensation and costs.

3) The appellants/opposite parties resisted the case. It alleged that the

complainant with an intention to become a member and having gone
through the terms and conditions paid Rs. 9,000/- on 24.9.2007. As per the
scheme if a person intended to become a life member he had to deposit Rs.

75,000/- towards membership fee and on such deposit its sister-concern

Amrutha Estates would allot a complementary plot to the member and he
had to bear registration expenses, development and maintenance charges of
Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly he paid Rs. 70,000/- towards membership fee
and also Rs. 15,000/- towards registration charges for 2-1/2 years. Out of
good faith it had registered a gift deed on 22.12.2009 and called upon him
to pay remaining balance of Rs. 5,000/-. Even as per the statement of
account maintained by it, the complainant had paid only Rs. 70,000/- as
against Rs. 75,000/-. If he was ready to pay balance of Rs. 5,000/- it would
hand over original gift deed. He was already enjoying the benefits as per
the scheme by availing the facilities provided in the opposite party club.
There was no deficiency in service nor unfair trade practise on its part, and
therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got
Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the appellants filed the affidavit evidence of
its Manager and got Ex. B1 marked.

5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined
that the complainant had paid Rs. 86,000/- out of which Rs. 71,000/- was
towards membership fee and Rs. 15,000/- was towards registration and
development charges for 2-1/2 years. On payment of fee, it had executed
the gift deed contrary to Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. The
entire transaction is commercial. The appellants are doing real estate
business under the guise of club membership and offering gift of a plot
thereby avoiding its responsibilities to which the seller of a plot is
subjected to.

Holding that it amounts to unfair trade practise directed the appellants to

pay Rs. 86,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from 5.5.2010 till the date of
payment however, without any costs.

     

6) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred the appeal
contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in
correct perspective. It ought to have seen that gift deed was never
challenged. The complaint was barred by limitation. He became a member
of the club on his own accord on 19.2.2007. He paid the amounts on
different dates to join as a member. It failed to consider Ex. A2 wherein it
was agreed by the appellant to allot complimentary plot of 150 sq.yds at
Golf Village Club at Warangal without any sale consideration subject to
payment of development charges and registration charges of Rs. 15,000/-.
As agreed the complainant had paid Rs.

15,000/- and a gift deed was executed on 19.12.2009. There was no

agreement in respect of said transaction and as the gift deed was affected it
ought not to have ordered refund of amount. Therefore it prayed for
dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist.
Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had paid altogether an

amount of Rs. 86,000/-

to the opposite parties evidenced under Exs. A1 to A5. The complainant

while paying initial amount paid Rs.

15,000/- towards maintenance, development charges etc. for the

complimentary plot pursuant to Ex. A6 letter dt. 27.2.2007 under the
heading Welcome Letter it is categorically mentioned among other things:

            

i.       

you are offered complimentary health club facilities at the Country Club,
Hyderabad for a period of 2 years from 8.3.2007 to 7.3.2009. In case this
facility is not availed, it would lapse and in no case would be extended.

                        

ii.       
You are offered discounts at specified hotels/hospitals/travels/beauty
parlours etc.

             

iii.       

You are offered subject to payment of registration fee suitable

accommodation under 3 days and 2 nights package at the Country Club,
Chennai, Bangalore, Mysore. You can avail this package 5 times a year
subject to availability of accommodation and payment of nominal fee.

           

iv.       

You are permitted free entry into the clubs under same management in
various cities except in Mumbai.

   

This was followed by another letter filed by the very complainant Ex. A7
wherein the complainant was offered Tassha Membership as
complementary for a period of 2 years from 8.3.2007 to 7.3.2009. The
complainant was allotted 150 sq.yds of plot as per the scheme evolved by
the club wherein he was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards development
charges, registration charges etc. of the above said plot vide letter Ex. A2
dt. 10.3.2007. He himself had paid Rs. 15,000/- through cheque dt.
20.11.2009 towards maintenance charges, development charges which we
have mentioned earlier vide Ex. A1. Pursuant to the above the appellants
had executed gift deed in his favour on 17.12.2009 vide Ex. B1. The
complainant pleads innocence about these facilities, and contends that
under the guise of membership a gift deed Ex. B1 was executed in his
favour. In fact he was made to part Rs. 75,000/- un-necessarily and he was
neither insisting for facilities nor the plot. He took the plea that that he was
not aware of all these facilities. The complainant went to the extent of
disowning the thumb impression on the Form-32 appended to the gift deed.
When he challenged, it was sent to Finger Prints Experts opinion. After
examining the finger prints the expert opined that:

  

The questioned left thumb impression said to be of HMH Quadri marked

as Q on the form of Photographs and Finger Prints as per Section 32A of
Registration Act, 1908 in Gift Deed document No. 7620/09 Dt. 17.12.2009
has been compared with the specimen left thumb impression of HMH
Quadri marked as S on the plain sheet of paper obtained.

The questioned left thumb impression marked as Q is identical with the

specimen left thumb impression marked as Sof HMH Quadri.

  

9) In the light of above evidence, we are unable to appreciate the

contention of the complainant that he was not aware of any of these
facilities nor at their instance the said amount was deposited. The
complainant himself is a doctor though an RMP. The very consistent
conduct of the complainant in payment of amounts on various dates and
having availed the services he cannot turn round and claim the amount. It
is up to him to accept the option or not. However, the fact remains that he
was not entitled to the amount which he deposited for becoming a member.

10) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant
had become a member of the club and according to the membership a
complimentary plot was allotted to him without any consideration which
he acknowledged for the terms and conditions but also on the very form
32A appended to the gift deed. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the complainant cannot turn round and take a strange contention that
he was not aware of the entire membership, which he entered into with the
appellant. We do not agree with the opinion expressed by the Dist. Forum
in this regard. There is no unfair trade practise nor deficiency in service on
its part. The complainant having signed Ex. B1 cannot turn round and
claim the amount.

    

11) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist.
Forum. Consequently the complaint is dismissed, however, no costs.

   

1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT    

2) ________________________________ MEMBER     17/09/2012    

*pnr                                                                               UP LOAD O.K.