How a ‘free gift’ call turned into 8-year consumer battle: Country Club ordered to refund man Rs 1.8 lakh

The district commission had found the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. “The complainant was induced into a composite scheme even without his knowledge, and the opposite party failed to provide either the plot or effective membership benefits,” the commission said on June 4.

Unfair trade practice

• The offer of a plot forms part of the promotional scheme or inducement, and the transaction assumes the character of a composite consumer transaction, the consumer court noted.
• Failure to deliver the plot or execute registration despite receipt of substantial consideration amounts to a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
• Clauses declaring the payment made towards the plot as non-refundable in the sale agreement would not automatically oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora or deny them an opportunity to examine whether such clauses are unfair, unreasonable, unconscionable or opposed to principles of equity and justice, particularly in standard form contracts, where there is unequal bargaining power.
• The amount awarded as compensation for mental agony is sustainable considering the prolonged retention of money and failure to provide promised benefits.

‘Free gift’ call that started it all

The dispute began in May 2018 when Goud received a phone call from a representative of ‘Country Vacations’ informing him that he had won a gift. He and his wife decided to visit the company’s office at Amrutha Castle in Hyderabad on May 22, 2018, to collect it.

What awaited them, according to the complaint, was not merely a gift collection but an elaborate sales presentation.

The couple were allegedly told about an attractive package that included a ‘Country Club’ membership, access to club facilities, domestic and international holiday stays, spa vouchers, event hall bookings and a plot under a project known as “Saila Bhoomi”.

The sales executives also allegedly assured them that most of the money could be recovered if they later chose to exit the membership.

Convinced by the promises, Goud paid Rs 40,000 through a debit card and another Rs 1.4 lakh in cash, taking the total payment to Rs 1.8 lakh.

‘Don’t consult anyone, offer will expire’

• According to the complaint, the sales pitch came with pressure tactics.
• Goud alleged that company representatives discouraged him from consulting anyone before making the purchase and told him that the offer would lapse if he stepped out of the premises.
• He further claimed that he was made to sign documents containing fine-print clauses without being given enough time to read them and was not provided copies despite specifically asking for them.
• The excitement of the sales pitch, he alleged, soon gave way to disappointment.
• Many of the promised facilities were either unavailable or required additional payments. Repeated attempts to obtain a refund or secure the promised plot allegedly got him nowhere.
• Feeling cheated, he eventually approached the consumer forum seeking a refund of his money and compensation.

Country Club’s defence

Country Club denied all the allegations. The company argued that the complainant had voluntarily opted for the membership after understanding all the terms and conditions.

It maintained that the membership fee became non-refundable after a specified cooling-off period.

The company also contended that Goud had separately agreed to purchase a plot in the “Saila Bhoomi” project but failed to pay the balance amount required for registration. It further claimed that he never properly utilised the membership benefits available to him.

According to the company, there was neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice.

Consumer forum found terms ‘one-sided’

• The district consumer commission saw things differently.
• After examining the material on record, the district commission concluded that the manner in which the membership had been sold reflected an unfair trade practice.
• It also found the contractual terms to be “one-sided, unfair and unreasonable”.
• The forum noted that the company had failed to produce evidence showing that the facilities and amenities promised during the sales process had actually been provided.
• As a result, it directed a refund of the Rs 1.8 lakh paid by the consumer along with interest and compensation for mental agony.

Plot, membership were part of same promise

While considering the appeal, the state consumer commission rejected the company’s attempt to separate the club membership from the plot offer. The bench noted that the company’s own pleadings showed that the plot and membership were marketed together as part of a single promotional package.

“The offer of plot forms part of the promotional scheme or inducement and the transaction assumes the character of a composite consumer transaction,” the consumer commission said.

The bench further held that failure to provide the promised plot or complete registration despite receiving substantial amounts from the consumer amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Importantly, the consumer commission said that merely labelling payments as “non-refundable” in standard-form contracts would not prevent consumer forums from examining whether such clauses were unfair or unreasonable.

No proof plot was ready

A key factor that went against the company was its inability to demonstrate that the promised project was actually ready. The commission pointed out that ‘Country Club’ failed to place clear evidence on record regarding the total plot consideration, payment schedules, demand notices or readiness to execute registration.

The judgment also noted that there was little evidence showing where the “Saila Bhoomi” venture was located or whether any developed project was available for conveyance.

“The developer or Holiday Membership Company cannot indefinitely retain consumer money without rendering promised service,” the commission observed.

Earlier ruling returns to haunt Country Club

The state commission also referred to an earlier National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruling involving Country Club. In that case, too, consumers had been attracted through membership schemes linked to plot offers.

The NCDRC had held that collecting money through such promises and then failing to deliver the promised benefits amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Finding the facts strikingly similar, the Telangana consumer commission concluded that Goud had been induced into a composite scheme and that the company had failed to provide either the promised plot or meaningful membership benefits.

On June 4, 2026, the state consumer commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the district consumer commission’s order in its entirety.