State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027





S.C. CASE NO. FA/09/13



DATE OF FILING: 13.01.2009

DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.03.2009


PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS


1) Toshali Resorts International

Toshali House

Y-42/4, Shahtoot Marg

DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-I

Gurgaon – 122 002

2) Toshali Resorts International

C-40, Market Building, Sahid Nagar

Bhubaneswar – 751 007

3) Toshali Resorts International

Shantineketan Building

8, Camac Street, 8th floor

P.S. – Park Street

Kolkata – 700 017



RESPONDENTS/O.Ps.



1) Sri Shyamal Sengupta

2) Smt. Shukla Sengupta

Both of 14, Hindusthan Road, Ground Floor, East Flat

Kolkata – 700 029



BEFORE : HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

MEMBER : MR. A.K. RAY



FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. S. Chatterjee, Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. B. Prasad, Advocate







: O R D E R :


HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT



This appeal was filed against the order dated 05.8.08 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-I in case No. 120 of 2007 whereby the complaint was allowed and the OP was directed to pay Rs.48,009/- towards the Membership Charge and Rs.5,000/- as compensation with interest and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

The case in brief is that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the OPs whereunder time share membership cost was Rs.21,604/- and member subscription was Rs.26,404/- totaling Rs.48,008/- and the membership was for 12 years in holiday season ‘Blue’ for 2 persons as per the said agreement dated 26.7.2000. The petitioners enjoyed their first year vacation holiday from the OPs as per their confirmation voucher dated 16.9.2000 at Toshali Sand, Puri from 26.11.2000 to 03.12.2000. As per terms and conditions of Membership Agreement the petitioner paid Rs.1800/- on 29.3.2001, Rs.1800/- on 16.9.2002 and Rs.2050 on 27.11.03 to the OPs. Under the said agreement the petitioners were to get one holiday vacation for seven days for one year and if the petitioners do not want to avail the same they can deposit their holidays in the OPs vacation bank. Accordingly the petitioners deposited their unit week No.26 (01.7.2001 to 08.7.2001) for the year 2001 to the OPs vacation bank on 29.3.2001 which was confirmed by the OPs. The petitioners were entitled to use the said vacation unit at any time within the year 2003. Again such deposit was made for the vacation unit week for the year 2002 which was also confirmed by OPs. The petitioners were interested to visit Goa as expressed by their letter dated 29.8.03 and the said letter was replied by the OPs by letter dated 01.09.03 where certain information were given. After some correspondence over a period of time as the exchange voucher was not provided for time share at Goa and other places and did not provide balancesheet for 2002, 2003 and 2004 for ascertaining the reason for enhancement of management fee, the complaint was filed seeking relief of compensation of Rs.1 lac including of Rs.48,009/- paid to the OPs and for cost of Rs.5,000/-. The Forum below came to a finding that OP failed to offer vacation voucher for Goa travel of the petitioners and accordingly relief was directed.

We have heard Mr. S. Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant. It appears that grievance of the appellant is that the complainant was entitled to enjoy a vacation in the allotted week of any year on usual charges and for enjoyment of the time sharing in any other week even on deposit of his entitlement for the year, when extra charges are to be paid except in case of resorts of the appellant. The complainant enjoyed the time sharing in the year 2000 and did not utilize the same for the subsequent two years. In the subsequent year the complainant though enquired about liabilities for the trip to Goa but did not ask for benefit of vacation under the agreement mentioning a particular week. The Complainant himself mentioned in the pleading about his entitlement in the 26th week of a year to enjoy the time share holiday. Enquiries were made about the arrangements in Goa but it was not indicated as to which week such benefit is to be availed of. Considering the materials on record we do not find any particular correspondence from the complainant to the OPs wherefrom it can be ascertained that the complainant asked for vacation in a particular week of a particular year at Goa. Therefore, not providing the voucher did not amount to any deficiency in service in such facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot stand though we make it clear that the petitioner continues to enjoy the right to avail of the service under the agreement indicating his requirement well ahead of the schedule date of travel. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The complaint is dismissed with the observation as made hereinabove and there will be no order as to costs.







(A.K. Ray) (Justice A. Chakrabarti)

MEMBER PRESIDENT