The Dwarka Sports Complex and the DDA which runs it have been directed by a consumer forum here to jointly pay Rs 32,000 to a man for not giving him membership of the club despite charging him fees for it.
The South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held the Delhi Development Authority and its sports club guilty of deficient service for not granting membership of the club to Dwarka resident Dinesh Kumar, till date, after he had
paid the fees for it in August 2002.
"Since it is admitted case of opposite parties (Dwarka Sports Complex and DDA) that they could not grant membership to complainant (Dinesh) despite having received the membership fees, therefore, they are liable for having not provided adequate satisfactory services to the complainant. "We direct opposite parties to jointly and severally refund to him a sum of Rs 10,000 (paid as membership fees).
"They shall also jointly and severally pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to complainant by not granting him membership since 2002 till date. They shall also pay a sum of Rs 2,000 as litigation cost," the bench presided by Narendra Kumar said.
The forum's order came on the complaint of Dinesh Kumar who claimed he had applied for membership in the sports club in August 2002 and had paid the fees for it.
When he did not get membership to club even after two years, he wrote to the DDA officials in 2004 requesting them to issue him the requisite membership number.
The club officials, however, refused to grant him membership saying they had not received any membership fees from him, he had alleged.
Dinesh claimed he had showed the club officials a certificate from the bank where they had an account certifying that the fees had been paid, but despite that proof they had not granted him membership.
In their defence, the Dwarka Sports Complex officials had argued that Dinesh's application and membership fees had gone missing as a result of a fraud committed by one of their employees, a UDC-cum-cashier.
The forum, however, refused to accept the reason given by the club officials and observed that, "He was the employee of the opposite parties who are vicariously liable for the wrong of their employees. Therefore, not granting the membership to
him constitutes deficiency-in-service on their part."