Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
K. Surendra Mohan, President, Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member and Smt. Beenakumari A., Member
Country Club India Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Noor Muhammed – Respondent
First Appeal No.300 of 2021
Decided on 19.4.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Sinu G. Nath, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquiescence - District Forum went on to consider the complaint on the merits. They cross examined the complainant and actively participated in the trial up to its final disposal. Thus, the appellants acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the District Forum, in this case. In view of the above, the contention regarding territorial jurisdiction which is required to be raised and determined at the earliest point of time cannot affect the validity of the order under appeal.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal - Clubs/Association of person – Territorial Jurisdiction – Objection if can be raised at belated stage - In the present case, the transaction admittedly took place at the office of the appellants at Visakhapatnam. However, the opposite parties have their branch office at Cochin. The complainant has instituted the complaint before the District Forum at Ernakulam. In response to the notice issued by the District Forum, the opposite parties who are the appellants appeared and filed their written version. It is true that, they have raised the question of territorial jurisdiction in their written version – Also, District Forum went on to consider the complaint on the merits. They cross examined the complainant and actively participated in the trial up to its final disposal. Thus, the appellants acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the District Forum, in this case. In view of the above, the contention regarding territorial jurisdiction which is required to be raised and determined at the earliest point of time cannot affect the validity of the order under appeal – Therefore, an interference with the order appealed against on the said ground is called for.
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal – Clubs/Association of person – Refund of money paid – Entitlement for – When no evidence is adduced – No evidence, either oral or documentary has been adduced by the opposite parties. The documents Exhibits A1 to A5 prove that the opposite parties had received the amounts stated to have been paid by the complainant. The contention of the appellants that the amounts are not refundable cannot be accepted since the respondent/complainant was unwilling to trust the opposite parties or to continue to have dealings with them. He has sought for the return of the money paid by him. Refusal to return the money paid by him is without any justification. This is a clear case where the respondent/complainant was compelled to part with his money on the basis of promises made by the appellants, which were found to be untrue by the complainant – On merits, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
K. Surendra Mohan, President—The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.429/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short). The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. For the sake of convenience parties shall be referred to herein according to their status before the District Forum.
2. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are an association of three groups viz., Country Club, Country Vacations and Country Corridor, all of which are primarily dealing in Hospitality Services, Vacations, Tour Packages and Real Estate. The opposite parties have their Head Office at Hyderabad with branches at various places including Ernakulam. They also have hotels and resorts in Kerala. The complainant is a former officer of the Indian Navy. He had shifted to Visakhapatnam in connection with his relocation.
3. On 13.03.2017, the complainant received a call from the 2nd opposite party informing him that he had been selected through a lucky draw held as part of the silver jubilee celebrations of the 2nd opposite party and had won free holidays and other gifts. He was asked to visit the branch office of the opposite party at Visakhapatnam to collect the gifts. When the complainant and his wife reached the Visakhapatnam branch office of the opposite parties, their officers extended unbelievable offers to the complainant as part of their silver jubilee celebrations. Complainant was informed that the offers were available for that day only and that if they wanted to avail the offers, they would have to take membership and make payment at the same time. The complainant told the opposite parties that he was preparing to shift from Visakhapatnam to Kerala and therefore he could not avail the offers from the opposite parties. The staff of the opposite parties convinced the complainant that they were having branches at various places in Kerala as well as many resorts and clubs so that the complainant could avail all the benefits and offers from Kerala itself. The staff of the opposite party forced and persuaded the complainant with their alluring promises to make a payment of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) towards lifetime membership of the opposite party. The complainant and his family were offered a package for availing their offers and associated products free, which also included a free holiday anywhere in India for a period of thirty years.
4. The complainant was also offered residential plots at cheap price by the opposite parties. He went to the office of the opposite party at Visakhapatnam on 15.03.2017 where they showed pictures of fully developed residential plots, enclosed with gates, with all amenities like park, swimming pool, club, spa etc. located 30km away from Hyderabad airport. According to the complainant, he was tricked and made to believe that he would get an additional discount as he was an ex-service man. He was further told that the offer was only for ten selected couple and therefore he booked three plots, paying an amount of Rs.5,40,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Forty Thousand). He was also made to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as taxi fare to visit the plot which was more than 100km away from Hyderabad. On reaching the site the complainant was shocked to see a rocky and rugged terrain located more than 5km away from the main road. The complainant therefore wanted return of the amount paid by him. But the opposite party refused to accede to the request of the complainant. The opposite parties were also not ready to resolve his grievances. The complainant felt cheated and was mentally shattered.
5. On 17.04.2017 the staff of the opposite parties called the complainant to the Visakhapatnam Head Office on the pretext of holding negotiations. The complainant was threatened with harmful consequences, if he decided to proceed against them. According the complainant, at present he is an unemploye
