CLUB PIONEER REGENCY vs P. EMMANUEL

THE opposite party is the appellant. THE complainant lured by the assertion given by the opposite party stating that they would commence the club facilities by December 1996 became a member of the club by paying a total sum of Rs. 88,000/- and a membership card was also issued to him. But the opposite party did not commence the club till the date of the complaint. It amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint was laid claiming the refund of Rs. 88,000/- with interest at 12% along with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE opposite party though appeared by Lawyer did not file any version and when the case was called, the opposite party was absent and the Counsel was also absent. THErefore, the opposite party was set ex parte and the lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund of Rs. 88,000/- with interest at 12% and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party has now preferred this appeal.

From the materials produced by the complainant which have been marked as Ex. A1 to Ex. A11, we find that the appellant/opposite party had invited membership for the club to be started by him in the name of M/s. Club Pioneer Regency. Ex. A1 is the pamphlet. Ex. A2 is the letter sent by the appellant informing the complainant of having received cheques for Rs. 25,000/- towards initial payment. This letter is dated 21.6.1996. On 12th July, 1996, they have written to say that the membership of the complainant has been approved and he has become a Privileged Member to Club Pioneer Regency and the superstructure is almost completed and the interior work has been started and that project would be commissioned soon. By this letter, the opposite party has also requested the complainant to inform his friends and relatives who are interested of this project. The list of individual members is also enclosed saying that about 64 persons have been enrolled as members. It also contains a list of corporate members about 13 in number. On 23.9.1996 a sum of Rs. 32,000/- has been received and another sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been received on 30.10.1996. In April 1997, the appellant has written to say that they had a discussion with the complainant on 18.3.1997 regarding the commissioning of the club and the letter sent by the complainant dated 4.3.1997 highlights the unpleasant discussion with Mr. Ethiraj of Construction Division and they have referred the matter to Manager for suitable action and that the club will be commissioned shortly and the entire projects department is working towards it and while regretting the delay, the Board of Directors have proposed to provide incentives to Members, for reposing confidence in them. By another letter dated 10.8.1997, they have sent a greeting for the New Year and they have stated that due to unprecedent rains, the commissioning of the project has been postponed to April 1997 and that they have diversified their activities into Supermarkets and Restaurants and they are about to launch nine to nine superstores and set new standards in domestic shopping and that the esteemed members are invited to visit the supermarket and the coffee shop and to have the privilege of availing 10% discount at the coffee shop and 2% discount at the supermarket. Again on 10.8.1997 they wrote to say that they are enclosing the discount copy to the members for using the nine to nine superstores and niner''s nook eatery. No mention is made about the construction of the club here. Again they have informed about the other privileges which can be availed of by the complainant. Thus, we find that the opposite party has received amount from the complainant promising membership in an exclusive club to be started by them. Though the amounts were received in July 1996, they have not chosen to carry out the project or complete the construction of the building and provide the club facility to the complainant. On the other hand, they with their sweet talks to lure the complainant to join some other scheme requested them to visit their supermarkets. Thus from the list of individual members and corporate members that number of persons were lured under a false representation that exclusive membership club is to be started and believing the representation, members of the public like the complainant have parted with huge sums of money. Having pocketed the sum so received by them, the opposite party has kept quiet without taking any steps to provide the facilities offered by them. This definitely amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite party namely the appellant herein having received the benefit has not even cared to express regret for the delay in launching the scheme but has chosen to find fault with the complainant for accusing the opposite party for the delay. We do not find any valid defence from the opposite party to the claim. There cannot be any valid defence also since the guilt writ very large upon the opposite party. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view from that of the Forum below. Thus, we see no merits in this appeal.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost confirming the order of the Forum below. Cost awarded is Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed.