RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.734 of 2014

Sh. William Parashar,

E- 24, Radha Kunj, Brij Vihar,

Ghaziabad, U.P.  201011                         …….. Appellant.

Versus

1- M/s Country Club India Ltd.,

    25, UG Floor, Community Center,

    East of Kailash, Opp. Sapna Cinema,

    New Delhi- 110065

2- Country Vacations International Holiday Club,

    C-55, First Floor, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg,

    Delhi- 110092                                       .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri R.C. Chaudhary, Member.

Sri Rajesh Kumar, Ld. counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

Date     19.11.2014

JUDGMENT

Sri R.C. Chaudhary,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.3.2014, passed by the  Ld. DCDRF, Ghaziabad in complaint case no.210 of 2012, the appellant William Parashar has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No.68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Forum below is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. The Forum below failed to appreciate the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record and passed the impugned

(2)

judgment and order against all settled principles of law, justice and fair play. It has, therefore, been prayed that the appeal be allowed and impugned judgment and order be set aside and he be awarded with the relief claimed by him in complaint case otherwise he will suffer irreparable loss.

In brief, the factual matrix of the case is that the appellant obtained membership of Country Club India Ltd. after a telephonic conversation with the representative of the respondents, followed by a meeting held on 27.10.2008 at Pacific Mall, Kaushambi, Ghhaziabad. The respondents offered the appellant/complainant a plot at Vedic Spa, Banglore apart from membership of various Hotels and Clubs. Accordingly, the appellant paid membership fees and was consequently, issued Membership Card. It has been alleged that the respondents failed to provide free or paid Holiday Package to the appellant, as promised. Consequently, a meeting between the parties took place on 8.1.2010 at the office of the respondents at Delhi where the respondents gave an assurance to return the entire money alongwith interest. On their failure to do so a complaint case no.120 of 2011: Sh. William Parashar vs. Country Club India Ltd. & another was filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North East, Govt. of NCT, Delhi in which the Forum held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action had arisen within the territory of NCT of Delhi and, therefore, the complaint was returned for presentation before the

(3)

Court or Forum having territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the complaint case, bearing no.210 of 2012 was filed before the Ld. DCDRF-I, Ghaziabad on 16.5.2012 which was dismissed on 13.3.2014 on the following 3 (three) grounds: 

 (i) The complaint was barred by the period of limitation as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act 68 of 1986,

(ii) That the Forum below had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter and,

(iii) That there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the complainant/appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the Forum below on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence available on record, concluded that the complaint was barred by the period of limitation as provided under Section 24(A) of the Act 68 of 1986. We have given due consideration on this point and in view of the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), II(2009) CPJ 29 (SC) at para 16, we are of the considered opinion that the Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. Admittedly, the cause of action finally arose on 8.1.2010 whereas, the complaint was filed in the month of May, 2012 and  no prayer was made by the complainant/appellant to condone the delay either before the Forum below or before this Commission.

(4)

Therefore, the complaint was barred by limitation and the Forum below rightly dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.

It may be observed here that the Forum below also dismissed the complaint on ground of territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The complainant was ordered to be withdrawn on ground of territorial jurisdiction by the Ld. District Forum, North East, Delhi on 15.11.2011. In this regard, it may be observed that the OPs reside in New Delhi and, therefore, the District Forum, North East, Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of provisions contained under Section 11(2)(A) and 11(2)(B) of the Act 68 of 1986 but taking recourse to the provisions contained under Section 11(2)(C) of the Act only, the Forum held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and accordingly, returned the complaint for presentation before court or forum having jurisdiction. This part of the order was not as per the provisions of law as contained under Section 11 of the Act 68 of 1986. From perusal of the judgment dated 15.11.2011 of the Ld. DCDRF, Delhi, it is evident that the representation of the appellant was received by the Country Vacations at S-7. IInd Floor, Pacific Mall, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad in which the respondents undertook to refund the money on or by 5.2.2010. It further shows that all meetings and  certain  other transactions also took place at Pacific Mall, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad and the respondents finally refused to refund the money at Kaushambi, Ghaziabad and, therefore, cause

(5)

of action also arose at Ghaziabad. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to hold that the Ld. DCDRF, Ghaziabad had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of the provisions contained under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act 68 of 1986. An agreement between the parties to oust the territorial jurisdiction nether can overside the express provisions provided under the Act nor is tenable under the law.

From perusal of the judgment, it transpires that the complainant/appellant admittedly did not comply with certain terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties and, therefore, the Forum below also concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. No evidence has been adduced before us to prove otherwise and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order passed by the Forum below dated 13.3.2014 is legally justified and we do not find any cogent reason to interfere in it. No irreparable loss will be caused to the appellant nor will there be any failure of justice if the appeal, being time barred, is dismissed at the admission stage.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents are engaged in the act of cheating and unfair trade practice and are financially squeezing many people by luring them of Vedic Spa and membership of reputed Hotels and Clubs and, therefore, criminal cases be ordered to registered against them. We have given due consideration on this

(6)

point whether to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents or not is the sole discretion of the appellant and we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion in this regard.

          Consequently, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage as barred by limitation. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties as per rules. 

         (A.K. Bose)                            (R. C. Chaudhary)   

    Presiding Member                              Member

Jafri

ST G-1

Court No.5