Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3626
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
G. Radha Rani, President, R.S. Rajeshree, Member
Y. Rajeev Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Akki Chandramohan Goud – Respondent
FA.No.710 OF 2022 | C.C.No.593 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: LAD Legal Services LLP
For the Respondents: Gopi Rajesh & Associates
A developer cannot indefinitely retain payments for a composite promotional scheme—comprising membership and a complementary plot—without performing the promised services or developing the plot; failure to provide these benefits constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Headnote:The consumer dispute centers on the failure of a provider to deliver promised membership benefits and a complementary plot under a composite promotional scheme. The complaint alleges that the consumer was induced through false representations and unfair terms without being provided a copy of the agreement. The District Commission found the opposite party engaged in unfair trade practices and failed to demonstrate the provision of promised amenities or the development of the plot. The Commission ordered a refund of the consideration paid along with compensation for mental agony and costs. The essential issues addressed were whether the composite transaction constituted an unfair trade practice and whether clauses defining the membership fee as non-refundable and the contract as unconscionable could be enforced despite the failure to provide the promised services. The court held that the developer cannot indefinitely retain consumer money without rendering service, noting that standard form contracts with unequal bargaining power are subject to judicial scrutiny for unfairness. The appeal filed by the service provider is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Commission in its entirety.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's findings on the composite nature of the transaction and the accountability of the service provider for failing to meet performance obligations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
**********
Order: (PER HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE DR.G. RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT)
01. This appeal is filed by the Opposite party aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad in CC No.593 of 2019.
02. The Respondent is the complainant. The parties are herein after referred as arrayed before the District Commission as complainant and opposite party.
03(a). The case of the complainant in brief was that he was contacted by one Mr. Narender from Country Vacations in the first week of May, 2018, stating that he had won a free gift. Due to the excitement created by Mr. Narender over phone about the gift, the complainant and his wife visited the office of the opposite parties in Amrutha Castle, Saifabad, Hyderabad on 22.05.2018 to collect their free gift. Once they reached the office, Mr. Narender claiming to be Manager from the sales team gave the gift and started convincing them to buy a Membership with Country Club along with a plot. When they got up to leave declining the offer, Mr. Narender requested them to stay and started explaining them that there was another fabulous offer to them. Mr. Narender explained them another scheme with the below mentioned facilities:
a. Membership of the Country Club.
b. Free Country Club Facilities, Gym, swimming pool, function halls etc.
c. Domestic/International trip for 3 nights, 4 days with free accommodation and local transport with off season on behalf of Country Vacations.
d. Domestic/ international trip for 7 nights, 8 days with free accommodation and local transport on behalf of Country Vacations.
e. 30 Spa Vouchers worth of Rs.2500/- each from Country Vacations to be redeemed at any of the Country Club or its affiliaters.
f. Caterers from outside can be hired for parties in Country Club function halls.
g. External functions and party halls, who had tie up with the Country Club can also be booked free of cost.
h. Refundable membership fee 90% at the option of the client within a year or taking membership 10% free cancellation of membership.
03(b). Attracted by the above promises made by Mr. Narender, the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- through SBI debit card and an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- through cash. Mr. Narender asked them not to consult anybody as there were phone jammers in the location and that the offer would expire if they step out. Trusting the above promises especially the facility of refund of money, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. After making the payments the complainant was made to sign on a stamp paper with illegible fine print for which he was not given time to read it before signing it. He was not given a copy of the same inspite of specially asking for it. When the complainant went to Amrutha castle once again he was disappointed as none of the sales team managers, executives showed any empathy, concern or friendly behavior, which they had shown earlier before the sale. The complainant realized that all the promises made by the country vacation were fake, false and untrue and that he was unable to use any of the promised facilities for free as everything was to be paid which was clearly deficiency of services that the appellant party had promised. The complainant was lured to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- by making false promises and illegible agreement. The opposite party deliberately violated the trust reposed on them and cheated the complainant and caused deficiency of services promised. When he tried to seek for refund of money, the opposite party executives intentionally avoided him for refund of amount and to allot plot. As such the complainant lodged the complaint stating that opposite party not only adopted unfair trade practice but also deficiency of service due to which he suffered physic
