RAJAN MEHTA vs Lake Club Sports Complex

THE petitioner/complainant remained a member of Lake Club Sports Complex for the period from June, 2011 to December 2013. The membership of the petitioner/complainant was renewed every three months and the last renewal was valid till December 2013. When the petitioner/complainant applied for further renewal, that was not granted, on the ground that he has not paid enhanced Category Maintenance Fee which became applicable with effect from 12 -10 -2013. Being aggrieved from the decision of the club, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking the following reliefs: (1) to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.50,000/ - towards cost incurred for litigation;

(2) to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.4,50,000/ - for causing mental and physical agony and harassment, deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice and

(3) to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of termination of membership till realization.

THE complaint was resisted by the opposite parties primarily on the ground that as per the terms on which the complainant/petitioner was granted membership, the fee could be revised at any time at the discretion of the Secretary, Chandigarh Sports Council. It was further stated in the reply filed by the opposite parties that considering the expenses a proposal was submitted for increasing the fee in respect of various sports facilities and the said proposal was approved by the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice was put up on the notice board of the complex increasing the fee with effect from 12 -10 -2013.

VIDE its order dated 29 -10 -2014 the District Forum dismissed the complaint with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/ -. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 08 -12 -2014 he is before us by way of this revision petition.

IT is not in dispute that as per one of the terms printed on the application form submitted by the petitioner/complainant while taking membership of the club, the fee could be increased at any time at the discretion of the Sports Secretary. The only disputed question, therefore, could be whether approval of the Sports Secretary was taken or not, before the said increase was effected.

THE complainant/petitioner has drawn our attention to a note available on page 55 of the paper book which indicates that a proposal for enhancement of the charges was signed by the General Manager on 25 -05 -2014, and by FS -cum -VP CSC on 29 -05 -2014. It was approved by Advisor to Administrator on 07 -06 -2014. Relying upon the aforesaid document the petitioner submits that the approval for enhancement of the charges was taken much later i.e. on 07 -06 -2014 though it ought to have been taken before effecting the enhancement with effect from 12 -10 -2013. A prima facie impression one gets on a perusal of this document is that it was a proposal for further revision of the charges and not the proposal for revision with effect from 12 -10 -2013. Though the complainant/petitioner maintains that the rates proposed in this document are the rates which were applied with effect from 12 -10 -2013, we cannot accept the contention. The notice available on page 38 of the paper book would show that charges for billiards were enhanced from Rs.300/ - to Rs.600/ - with effect from 12 -10 -2013. The same are the charges shown in respect of billiards, in the column existing . Similarly, as per the notice on page 38 of the paper book the revised charges were Rs.600/ - each for squash, table tennis, tennis and water sports. A perusal of the proposal on page 55 of the paper book would show that the existing charges shown for squash, table tennis, water sports are shown as Rs.600/ - per month. The enhancement proposed in the proposal available on page 55 of the paper book was primarily in respect of swimming charges, lawn booking charges, booking of hall and sports facilities and swimming charges for OTF members. It is, thus, quite evident that the proposal available on page 55 of the paper book, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner/complainant was for the purpose of seeking further revision in respect of certain facilities provided in the club and this is not the proposal seeking revision of the charges with effect from 12 -10 -2013. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention that the revision which became effective from 12 -10 -2013 was approved only on 07 -06 -2014.

WE also find that nowhere in the complaint the petitioner/complainant alleged that the charges were revised with effect from 12 -10 -2013 without taking approval of the Sports Secretary. In the absence of such a plea, the oral contention raised by the complainant/petitioner cannot be entertained. Moreover the document which he relies in respect of his oral contention does not corroborate the claim made by him during the course of hearing. In any case, a finding of fact having been returned by the District Forum and accepted by the State Commission, we will not be justified in interfering with the said finding in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction unless the said finding is shown to be perverse. In our opinion, the material available on record does not in any manner make out the case of the complainant that the revision of the facilities with effect from 12 -10 -2013 was without approval of the Sports Secretary. Therefore, the aforesaid finding cannot be said to be such which no reasonable person acting on the material available to him could have recorded. 7. The petitioner also relies upon the information provided by the club under RTI Act vide communication dated 17 -04 -2014. His contention is that as stated in the aforesaid communication, the file seeking enhancement of the user fee was under submission at that time which would mean that the approval had not been granted by the competent authority by the time the said communication was issued. Again we find no merit in the contention of the complainant. A careful perusal of the aforesaid communication would show that the file was under submission to the Secretary for further revision of the leftover items and not for the purpose of revision with effect from 12 -10 -2013.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.