PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (tate Commission for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondents-OPs and set aside the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by the District Forum, Panipat in Complaint no. 369/2006. Vide its order dated 06.04.2007, the District Forum had accepted the complaint of the petitioners by granting following reliefs:- we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.80700/- to the complainants together with interest @ 12% from 1.2.2006 the last payment till its realization together with Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses within a period of thirty days from the date receipt of copy of this order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the petitioners who are original complainants had become members of the Time Share Scheme launched by the OPs, who are respondents herein, vide agreement dated 15.06.2000. Under the scheme, the OPs had offered a gift coupon for the customers for two nights and three days at their resorts. The gift coupon was valid for 60 days from the date of its issue. The petitioners purchased a gift coupon bearing no. 30265 dated 15.06.2000 in which there was complementary stay for two nights and three days at Mussoorie. They deposited Rs.10,350/- at the time of agreement with the OPs. It is further stated by the petitioners that they had applied for complementary stay but no response was given by the OPs and rather they demanded the balance amount and then the balance amount was paid by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners applied to the office of the respondents for availing the facilities of resort at Goa from 25.12.2006 to 31.12.2006 in the month of April, 2006 but the respondents flatly refused to accept the request. In the circumstances, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the petitioners approached the District Forum with their complaint in question. 3. On being noticed, the respondents contested the complaint and denied the version of the petitioners by taking the plea that the petitioners had not availed the gift coupon which was valid for 60 days from the date of its issue. It was also denied that the petitioners had ever applied to the respondents for availing the holidays at Goa from 25.12.2006 to 31.12.2006. According to the respondents, as per the agreement executed with the petitioners, the membership of the petitioners was for Bhimtal Resort for ten days and in case the petitioners wanted to have holidays at any place other than the company resort at Bhimtal or Koshi then they could avail the same through RCI (Resort Condominiums International) which is an independent International Exchange Organization for reciprocal exchange programme for resort members. As per Clause 4 of the agreement all the communications with regard to the Exchange Programme of holidays could be made directly to the RCI. With these averments, the respondents while denying any kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint as stated above. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the respondents carried the same in appeal before the State Commission which allowed their appeal and reversed the order of the District Forum vide its impugned order. 4. We have heard Mr. B.S. Kharb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Veena Goel, Advocate appearing for the respondents. 5. It is to be noted that two specific grievances have been made by the petitioners in their complaint before the District Forum. The first pertains to the denial of complementary stay in accordance with the gift coupon and the second is in respect of refusal to accept the request of the petitioners for availing facilities of resort at Goa during December, 2006. Both these grievances were denied by the respondents in their written statement before the District Forum. In the appeal filed by the respondents, the State Commission held that the petitioners could not raise any dispute in regard to the coupon, which was given to them in the year 2000 with specific validity period for availing resort facility at Mussoorie. In respect of the second grievance, the State Commission observed that the petitioners could not produce any evidence to prove that they had actually approached the respondents during April, 2006 for availing facilities at Goa from 25th December to 31st December of 2006. In any case, since the complaint came to be filed in August, 2006, the State Commission considered it to be premature. Since the time of proposed availment facilities at Goa was for December 2006, the grievance in respect of Goa was also found to be in contravention to the terms and agreement by the State Commission. In consideration of all these aspects, the State Commission accepted the appeal of the respondents and reversed the order of the District Forum, which obviously erred in ignoring these important provisions of the agreement. While accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:- e find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties. No doubt, the complainant cannot raise any dispute with respect to the coupon which was given to him in the year 2000 for availing resort facility at Mussoorie. Secondly, the complainants have miserably failed to produce on record any evidence to prove that they had approached to the opposite parties in the month of April, 2006 for availing the facilities of resort at Goa from 25.12.2006 to 31.12.2006. Mere pleading without any evidence cannot be believed as trustworthy. More so, the resort facility at Goa as alleged by the complainant was to be availed from 25.12.2006 to 31.12.2006 whereas the complainants filed the present complaint in the month of August, 2006 and thus the present complaint was pre-mature. Another aspect which requires consideration in this case is that as per agreement executed between the parties, the complainants could have availed the resort facility at the opposite parties at their Bhimtal or Koshi resorts for ten years but the complainants allegedly wanted to avail this facility at Goa and as per agreement the complainants could have availed this facility through Resort Condominiums International. As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions it is established on record no case of any kind of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice stands proved against the appellant-opposite parties. The District Forum has not considered the factual position on record and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not see any reason or ground to interfere with it. Nothing has been placed before us by the counsel for the petitioners, which would persuade us to hold otherwise. There being no substance in the revision petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.