1. THE facts leading to this Revision Petition are that Rajkot Municipal Corporation advertised in newspapers in 1988 that the yearly subscription of membership of the swimming pool was 60/- . A person could be a member for 2 months or 4 months and so on payment of Rs. 5 /- per month. THE swimming pool was opened in September, 1988. Some members opted for yearly membership and each paid Rs. 60/-. THE Municipal Corporation did not permit the yearly members to use the swimming pool after March, 1989 on the ground that the financial year had expired. THE members complained before the Commissioner of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, but in vain.
2. THE yearly members, through the Rajkot City Consumer Association, filed a complaint before the District Forum for a refund of Rs. 25/- i.e. monthly membership of the swimming pool for the remaining 5 months for which each of them was not able to use it. Thus the dispute between the parties is whether the members who opted for yearly membership were entitled for the benefits for 12 months period or to the benefits of membership for the financial year only.
The contention of the Municipal Corporation before the State Commission was that yearly member has an advantage over other members as he gets automatic renewal for the next financial year if he is prepared to pay Rs. 60/- as yearly fee in the ensuing year whereas other members do not get automatic membership but have to stand in queue and have to wait for their turn if there is any vacancy for membership. It is also the case of the Corporation that entry fee is also taken when a person becomes a member and such entry fee is not charged afresh when a yearly member choose to become member for the next financial year i.e. he need not pay any entry fee for the second year. (It appears from the Order of the District Forum that the entry fee is Rs. 10/-).
The District Forum upheld the contentions of the Corporation that the members who enrolled for a yearly membership were entitled to become members in the following year and thus were getting benefit of yearly membership. That is the reason why some members opted for yearly membership even though the financial year was ending after 7 months. Considering these facts the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
3. FEELING aggrieved of that order, the Rajkot City Consumer Association filed appeal before the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad. It did not consider the benefits which yearly member was to derive if he opted for yearly membership. It held that if yearly members were enrolled in September, 1988 the Corporation should permit those members to take the benefit of the swimming pool till the last date of August, 1989 otherwise the Corporation was obliged to refund the excess amount recovered by them for not providing the services. It also took into consideration a previous similar case as a precedent where the then Commissioner had refunded the amount for the period for which the services were not provided. Accordingly the State Commission accepted the appeal and ordered the refund of Rs. 25/- to each of the 17 members shown in the list, and enrolled as members on yearly basis. It also ordered the payment of costs of the District Forum as well as the State Commission which were quantified at Rs. 250/- for each Court.
Not feeling satisfied with that order, the Municipal Corporation and its officers have come up before us by way of this Revision Petition. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. We are of the opinion that the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained. The Corporation has its own rules and regulations and there are different types of memberships. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the rules framed by the Municipal Corporation about the swimming pool are not binding upon its members.
4. AS noticed earlier, the yearly members get some benefits as they have not to pay fresh entry fee for the next year nor they stand in que for membership for the next financial year. These benefits are not available to those members who do not enroll on yearly basis.
The State Commission has also taken into consideration the fact that in some earlier instance refund had been allowed by the Commissioner. The then Commissioner might have taken a lenient view and allowed refund to yearly members for the months for which they were prevented from using the swimming pool. In fact, that precedent goes against the present Complainants. In that case also yearly membership was taken to be for the financial year. Members were not allowed to use the swimming pool after the end of the financial year. That might have been the first occasion of the late opening of the swimming pool and the members might not be knowing that the yearly membership comes to an end at the end of financial year irrespective of the month when the swimming pool was opened for use.
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the State Commission exceeded its jurisdiction while ignoring the rules of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation in respect of the swimming pool run by it. Consequently, we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum. In the circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs. Revision allowed.
