STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 264 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 21.06.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 01.07.2013 |
K. K. Bheniwala, Ex-Deputy Advocate General Punjab, resident of House No.1234, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1] Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited, through Managing Director, 7, 3rd Cross Street, City Tower, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600020.
2] Managing Director, Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited, 7, 3rd Cross Street, City Tower, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600020.
3] Manager, Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited, SCO No.909, First Floor, Manimajra, NAC, Chandigarh, now S.C.O.186-187, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Surinder Singh Duhan, Advocate for the appellant.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.4.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it disposed of the complaint, filed by the complainant by directing the Opposite Parties, to provide holiday facilities to the complainant forthwith, as per his Membership entitlement, subject to his deposit of management/AAC charges due towards him.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant became a Member of the Opposite Parties, vide Annexure C-1, after paying Rs.66,650/- towards the purchase of 21 SFC Units on 10.4.2003 (Annexure C-2). It was stated that the complainant availed of two holidays at the resorts of the Opposite Parties in the years 2004 and 2005 and also paid annual amenity charges of Rs.3570/- vide Annexure C-3. It was further stated that the membership period of the complainant was from 2003 to 2035. It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh, for getting the resort booked for the year 2006, but it was found locked. It was further stated that the Company closed its business due to losses. It was further stated that on 1.12.2009, the complainant received a letter (Annexure C-4) from the Opposite Parties, informing that the Company was making a constant endeavour to offer value for money for the customer and in the next 1 or 2 years, and there would be far reaching improvements in the services provided by them. It was further stated that despite their promises, the Opposite Parties, failed to provide resort facilities to the complainant for the years 2006 to 2012 and kept on asking for annual amenity charges (AAC) for the year 2012 (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that the complainant made many requests for refund of the amount of Rs.66,650/- paid towards the resort facility, but the Opposite Parties, neither provided the resort facility nor refunded the amount. It was further stated that a legal notice dated 30.8.2012 (Annexure C-6) was served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.66,650/- with interest @18% per annum, pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, took up some preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complaint was time barred and the District Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain & decide the matter, as no cause of action had accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh. On merits, it was admitted by the Opposite Parties, that the complainant was enrolled as a Member with them for the period from 2003 to 2035 and he also paid Rs.66,650/- as well as annual charges to them. It was stated that the complainant availed of three holidays in the years 2003 and 2004. It was further stated that the office of the Opposite Parties, was shifted from Manimajra to Chandigarh in the year 2012 and due intimation of the same was given to all the concerned members. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, never closed their business nor left their members helpless. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were duly providing holidays to all members, who were not defaulters during the years 2006 to 2012. It was further stated that the complainant never made any request for a holiday during these years. It was further stated that the holidays were duly booked/availed of during the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 by similarly placed Members, who had paid their Management/AAC Charge as reflected in Ex.RW/B (Colly). It was further stated that as per Rules, the AAC charges/Management Charges were payable every year irrespective of whether any holiday was availed/booked during that year [(Ex.RW/C (colly.)]. It was further stated that the complainant was sent reminders to pay the AAC charges for the period 2005 to 2012, but he failed to remit the same. It was further stated that the fact regarding the complainant’s ineligibility, due to non payment of ACC charges, was duly intimated to him vide Annexure C-5, wherein the outstanding dues of Rs.35,951/- were shown as on 31.12.2011. It was further stated that neither any request for refund was ever received from the complainant, nor the same was permissible as per Rule 6.8.1 of the Membership Rules. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were always ready and willing to provide facilities, as per the Membership Rules, but the complainant neither made payment towards the AAC charges nor requested for any booking. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/complainant enrolled himself as a Member with the respondents/Opposite Parties, by making payment of Rs.66,650/- as well as annual amenity charges of Rs.3,570/- (Annexures C-2 and C-3). It is also an admitted fact that the appellant/complainant availed of holiday packages in the year 2003-2004. The membership period of the complainant was from 2003 to 2035 and he was required to deposit annual amenity charges, as per the terms and conditions (Annexure C-1), agreed to by him. The evidence, on record, reveals that the appellant/complainant did not deposit the annual amenity charges, from the year 2005 onwards. The contention of the appellant/complainant that he visited the Chandigarh office of the respondents/Opposite Parties, and the same was found locked, has been controverted by the respondents/Opposite Parties, stating that they shifted their office. As per evidence, produced by the appellant/complainant, himself, he had received letters dated 01.12.2009 and 31.12.2011 (Annexure C-4 and C-5 respectively). In communication (Annexure C-5), the outstanding balance against the appellant/complainant, was indicated to be Rs.30,344.00 + Rs.5607.00 = Rs.35,951.00. It sufficiently establishes that the Company was in existence and carrying on its activities. When the appellant/complainant took up the matter with the respondents/Opposite Parties, by sending a notice dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure C-6), he, for obvious reasons, did not refer to the letter dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure C-4), and rather, in Para 6 of notice dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure C-6), he submitted that despite the respondents/Opposite Parties, having closed their office at Manimajra, Chandigarh, kept on asking for the annual
amenity charges for the period from 2005 to 2011. Thus, it is very clear that the appellant/complainant was receiving communications from the respondents/Opposite Parties, for depositing annual amenity charges and his plea that the respondents/Opposite Parties, closed their Chandigarh office, is not sustainable. The respondents/Opposite Parties, categorically asserted before the District Forum that they never closed their business, and were duly providing holidays packages to all Members who were not defaulters during the years 2006 to 2012. When the appellant/complainant could take up the matter with the President of the respondents/Opposite Parties, at Chennai, nothing debarred him from taking such an action earlier, with the respondents/Opposite Parties.
9. Clause No.11 of the Application Form [Ex.RW/C (Colly)], at Page No.63 of the District Forum file, duly filled in and signed by the appellant/complainant, is reproduced hereunder: -
“I/We understand that it is my/our obligation to pay the Management Fees every year till the last year of my/our membership period as mentioned in the Membership Certificate; irrespective of utilization of my/our holiday by me/us. The Management Fees are payable by me/us to the company on a per unit owned basis as may be fixed by the company. I/We also understand that in case of particular year/s I/We do not pay the Management Fees as per the units owned, I/We will not be allowed to avail of our regular holiday pertaining to these units.”
10. As per the above clause, the appellant/complainant had undertaken that he would be paying the Management Fee every year till the last year of his membership period, and, in case of failure to pay the same, for any particular year, he would not be entitled to avail of regular holiday pertaining to the units, allotted to him vide Unit Certificate (Annexure C-1), containing the terms and conditions overleaf. Thus, the appellant/complainant was bound by his undertaking viz. to pay management charges annually irrespective of utilization of holidays and his ineligibility to avail of the holiday package on failure to pay the said charges. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
1st July, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.264 of 2013)
Argued by: Sh. Surinder Singh Duhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated the 1st day of July, 2013
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
DEV RAJ MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
