Haryana

StateCommission

A/274/2017

DEVA SWIMMING INSTITUTE - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEERAJ SALUJA - Opp.Party(s)

VINEET SEHGAL

24 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                        First Appeal No.274 of 2017                                                  Date of Institution: 09.03.2017

Date of Decision: 24.01.2019

 

M/s Deva Swimming Institute, Head office H.No.455, Sector 23, Near Entry-3, Gurgaon through its Authorized partner Sh.Devender Lamba.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Neeraj  Saluja, H.No.11, Sector-15, Part-I, Gurgaon-122001.

2.      President, HUDA Gymkhana Management Committee, HUDA Gymkhana Club, Sector-29, Gurgaon.

                   …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Manjula, Member

Present:              Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant.

                             None for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that complainant had taken club membership under membership No.839 from the opposite party.  The O.P. offered various type of facilities like swimming pool, lawn tennis court etc. to third parties and non members of the club.    The receipts of HUDA Gymkhana facilities were issued, but, the same were not being accounted in the club’s account.  There was no record of people entering the club. the terms and conditions of the club does not allow its facilities to be offered to non members and requested the OP for ceasing of non members entry into the club’s premises/facilities but to no effect. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P. by filing a separate written statement before the District Forum,  in which  O.P. stated that  the club generates its own income through membership.  The constitution of the society was entrusted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the society.  O.P. had given the work regarding the maintenance of swimming pool on contract basis to M/s Deva Swimming Institute on trial basis for six months and after satisfaction, the contract was extended to three years.  The swimming pool was in dilapidated condition, so the proposal for renovation was given to M/s Deva Swimming institute for seven years on build operate transfer basis w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 30.03.2018 on payment of Rs.4,50,000/- for the first year which will be revised every year by Rs.50,000/-. The agreement entered by the club with M/s Deva Swimming Institute for maintenance, running and operation was completely valid as per rules.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.01.2017 and directed as under:-

“ We direct the OP to promote the recreation facilities and other facilities in terms of the constitution of the flub.  the opposite party is burdened with cost of Rs.5000/- on account of causing harassment and interference in the enjoyment facilities of the club members.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, Deva Swimming Institute has preferred this appeal, who was not a party in the complaint.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Vineet Sehgal, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Saurabh Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      While addressing the arguments, it has been fairly admitted on behalf of the parties that the period of the agreement had already been  expired and whatever the services were rendered by the present appellant are no longer in existence. Once the time is the essence of an agreement, which has already been expired. The present appeal had become redundant and stands dismissed.

 

January 24th, 2019     Manjula               Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl. Bench          Addl.Bench                 

S.K.