1. T.Deendayalu Patrol,

S/o T. Panchunath Patro,

2. Mrs. T.Reena Patro,

W/o T.Deendayalu Patro,

3. T.Santosh Kumar Patro,

S/o T.Panchunath Patro,

(All are of Pandu Nivas, Bus stand, Aska, ……………………..Complainants.

District: Ganjam)


1. Sterling Resorts (I) ltd.

Plot No.9 behind Bhubaneswar Hotel,

Housing Board colony, Bhubaneswar

Lewis Road, pin: 751 002,

2, P.Mohan, Managing Director,

Sterling Resorts (I) Ltd.

406, TTK Road, Alwarpet,


3. Steve Borgia

President, Sterling Resorts (I) ltd.

406, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chenai-600018.

4. Head customer service S.H.R.(I) ltd.,

Barick Bhawan, 6th floor, R.C.R.Avenue, ……………..Opp. parties.

Calcutta-700 072.


Mr. B.Ch.Swain,

Mr. P.S.N.Patro,| Advocates ………………..for the complainant.

Mr. M.K.Padhi

Mr. Subhendra Kumar Mohanty,

Mr. Hemanta Kumar Mohanty,

Mr. N.Satapathy,

Mr. D.P.Dash | Advocates …………for the Opp. Parties.


Sri Haris Chandra Nayak, President;

The Honorable State State C.D.R. Commission, Orissa, Cuttack has passed an order No.27 dt.12,8,2008 vide C.D.Case No.26 of 2001 and send the matter to the Dist. Forum Ganjam, Berhampur, the complaint comes within the jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum and the cause of action is of Berhmapur. As the matter is of the year 2001, the Dist. Forum would do well to expedite the hearing and disposal of the matter as early as possible.

2. This case is taken up on 27.12.2008. Again notice served to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases.

3. Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that the O.Ps haveFloated a Resort namely Sterling Resorts for the purpose of serving its Members with the facilities of providing holiday facilities by providing accommodation for stay and other facilities. A scheme for sale of time shares was initially floated under which a lease shall be given for a period of 99 years in a particular place wherever the O.Ps own their resorts and a Member enrolled in the scheme shall be entitled to avail one week for year in respect of specified size of the rooms/accommodation in a given place. The complainants No.1 and 2 on 24.9.95 being approached by the O.Ps through their Agents assuring several facilities has agreed to purchase a time share at Puri for a regular apartment for a total value of Rs. 42,500/- to be paid by six installments. A time share No.68493 for week No.35 at Puri was allotted to the complainant Nos. 1& 2. The complainants have also received a certificate of membership to this effect. The complainants after becoming a Member and having got a right to avail bonus week applied on 6.5.96 for availing the bonus week. Although the complainants are entitled to utilize the same by letter dt.13.5.96, such facility was denied on the plea that the holiday can be utilized either in classic or season period and not otherwise. The complainants were not given to avail either facility conferred under the time share nor under the sterling crown. The complainants deposited Rs.1, 68,700/- in this regard. The complainants issued Advocates Notice on dt.30.12.2000 but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund Rs.1,68,700/- with 18% interest from the date of deposit till realization and compensation of Rs.50,000/- in the best interest of justice.

4. The Opposite parties filed version on 28th February 2007. The complaint as laid down is not maintainable. There is no cause of action to bring this present complaint. The parties are bound by the limited terms of contract agreed among them. There are no contractual obligations in the part of the answering Opp.parties to hold liable and answerable in the present disputes. The allegations never make out a complaint to be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly and undisputedly the certificate of membership is provided to the complainant in time. The complainant pleased to accept the offer made by the answering O.Ps and applied for allotment of time shares after going through the limited terms and conditions. The complainant being a regular type time share holder is not entitled to avail premium period as would be clears from rights of time shareholders accepted in annexure-3 of the complaint petition. The complainant was communicated with the information provided in period classification chart. The complainants being satisfied with the terms and conditions and the scheme leased to accept the offer for availing sterling crown. The Complainant was allotted holiday resort at VAGATOR, Goa for period classification under red time. The complainant was provided with certificate of membership showing allotments of time share under the Sterling Crown Privilege Vacation Membership. The terms and conditions are explained to the complainant, and such question of cheating does not arise. The averments made in para 6 of the complaint petition with regard to not allowing the complainant to avail the facilities under the Time Share and Sterling Crown Scheme and there by the complainant disappointed, is disputed and denied. The complainant is intimated that he is eligible for a bonus holiday of 6 nights and 7 days that can be availed in the season or classic periods. He is further intimated that he can use his holiday’s either in 1997 or 1998. The complainant was supplied with the membership Certificate under Heritage India on 18.2.1999 in there is a clears stipulation that the membership period commencing from 1.1.97 and ending with 1.1.2030. As such the complainant in no way entitles to avail the time share on 29.12.1996. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions agreed among them and this answering O.Ps assures best of its service within its limitations. There is no deficiency in assured service or denial of assured service by the O.Ps. The complainant asked for refund of money with interest on 13.9.2000. The complainant takes no steps to payback the outstanding amounts and amount due, due to dishonor of cheque No.226540. The complainant was intimated his outstanding status vide letter dt.26th September 2000. As per the limited terms of contract all the time share holders are entitled to derive the benefits after payment of all installments. The amount invested by the complainant is not intended to generate any profit or interest. The maintainability of the complaint is disputed by the answering opposite parties in its preliminary objections and hence not repeated. Hence prayed to dismiss the case.

5. On the date of hearing we heard argument. Perused the pleading and documents available in the record. In his complaint petition supported by affidavit, the Complainant stated that the O.P. showed deficiency in service for repayment of the deposits amounting to Rs.1,68,700/- made by him. He further stated that the O.Ps failed to respond his requests. We are of the opinion that the O.Ps showed deficiency in service.

In the result we direct the Opposite parties who are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,68,700/- together with cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order.

The order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 13th January 2010.

Typed to my dictation