Decided on March 24,2006

Country Vacations Appellant
D Kumaravelu Respondents


- (1.)THE opposite parties are the appellants. The respondents/complainants have filed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000 and a sum of Rs. 5 lakh as compensation and cost of Rs. 10,000.
(2.)THE case of the complainant is as follows:
The first complainant is a practising advocate in Pondicherry and he is an Income Tax Assessee. The second complainant is the wife of the first complainant. The 3rd opposite party approached the complainants and offered for sale of Membership of 1st opposite party. The fee for the membership was fixed at Rs. 45,000 and administration fee of Rs. 5,000. The benefits promised apart from its usual membership benefits offered holiday stay at any location in India and abroad for 10 years. The complainant accepted the offer and paid Rs. 20,000. The 3rd opposite party permitted the complainant to pay the balance by way of four instalments. As per the request of the 3rd opposite party, the complainant has issued four post -dated SBI cheques to the custody of the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party handed over the signed agreement to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party also gave membership No. DT 6/58. The complainants chose a forest location in Karnataka. The 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that since it is raising in forest area no useful purpose will be served to visit that location. So the complainant chose Bangalore to have holiday accommodation for their family for three days commencing from 13 to 15th August, 2005. The 3rd opposite party handed over a holiday stay confirmation letter. The complainants and their family left for Bangalore on 12th night in PRTC bus. When they reached Bangalore the next day, the complainant contacted Mr. Brain over phone about the accommodation. But to the utter surprise and shock, the concerned person declined accommodation. He also had a check in the records and said that there is no such reservation for the complainants. The complainants were put to great shock and put to lot of mental and physical strain. The complainants were stranded in the street for nearly two hours unable to make a decision. The climate was also cold and the complainants were almost struggling with their two young children of 5 years and 2 years respectively. The complainants called the 3rd opposite party to give them an alternatively. The complainant s called the 3rd opposite party to give them an alternative accommodation, but, though he assured to do so, failed to respond. The complainants were made to believe that there is confirmation at the Country Club, Lake side, Bangalore for three days. The complainants were also made to believe the letter of the 2nd opposite party by the 3rd opposite party and only later, the complainant came to know that it is nothing but a waste paper and an act of fraud. The complainant having reached back Pondicherry met the third opposite party and wanted return of the money paid by him. Though the opposite party called upon the 2nd opposite party over phone and informed about the incident, there was no proper response. Hence, the complainants were compelled to issue notice dated 19.8.2005 to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties demanding them to refund the money collected with compensation of Rs. one lakh. Though the notice was served upon the opposite parties, they did not pay back the money received nor a word until 5th night of September, 2005 when the 3rd opposite party came with an executive to the complainant s residence and requested for two days time for settlement and on failure to resort to any action. His representation was believed and the complainants waited for the money but on 7th night at about 8.30, the 3rd opposite party brought another person and requested time till 11.30 a.m. on the next day. This was also a stage managed drama adopted by the opposite parties. The complainants were made to believe and at last, there has been a case of cheating, fraud coupled with gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainants estimated the compensation at Rs. 5 lakhs. Hence, the complaint is filed.

3. The opposite party were set ex parte by the District Forum.

4.On the side of the complainant, Ex. C1 to C8 were marked. On consideration of materials and documents, the District Forum has directed the opposite party to return Rs. 20,000 and pay a sum of Rs. one lakh towards compensation and cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have come forward with this appeal.

M.P. No. 7 of 2006

The respondents/complainants have filed an application for reception of additional documents to prove that the complainants are Income Tax Assessee. They have filed copy of the Income Tax Return Forms. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the first complainant is advocate and that the 2nd complainant is his wife and that both complainants are Income Tax Assessees. To prove the same, the complainants have filed the copy of the returns submitted to Income Tax Authorities. It is not disputed that the complainants are Income Tax Assessees. Therefore, there can be no impediment in receiving the additional documents.

(3.)THE additional documents are marked as Exs. C9 and C10.
In the result, the M.P. No. 7 of 2006 is allowed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.