1. Sri Nirmal Debnath,
2. Smt. Sutapa Debnath,

Both residing at

29B, School Road, Birati Nataraj Apartment,

Flat No.-C/2/1, 2^nd Floor, Birati,

P.S. Nimta, Kolkata-700051.                                                                    ________ Complainants

____Versus____

1. Country Vacations represented by

Manager / Authorized Person,

86B/2, 1^st Floor, Gajraj Chambers,

Park Circus Connector, Topsia Road,

P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-46.

2. Customer Care Manager representing

Country Vacations

A Division of Country Club (India) Ltd. 

86B/2,  Gajraj Chambers,

Park Circus Connector, Topsia Road,                                                        

P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-46.                                                                       ________Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

Order No.   18    Dated   22-09-2015.

       The case of the complainants in short is that complainant no.1 had deposited Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively to o.ps. for Corporate Membership with o.ps. Complainants enclosed photocopies of the receipt no.3641 dt.4.1.10 and receipt no.3653 dt.5.1.10 respectively along with the petition of complaint. Complainants stated in para 3 of complaint petition that they have deposited the said amount for 5 years tour programme and was assured to avail of the resort facility throughout India round the year. Complainants stated in para 6 of the complaint petition that in the year 2010 they had a plan to go to Haridwar, Hrishikesh, Dehradun etc. but the said programme had to be cancelled due to non availability of any resort at those places. Complainants further stated in para 7 of the complaint petition that in the year 2011 they intended to visit Delhi, Agra, Rajasthan, but once again complainants were disappointed since there was no provisions for resort at those places as stated by o.ps.

            Complainants further stated that being frustrated they demanded the o.ps. to refund the amount which  has already been deposited to them as stated hereinabove, but all in vain. Under such circumstances, complainant filed the instant case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and contested the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. stated that there is no evidence in the record wherefrom complainants can prove the statement as has been made by them in para 6 and 7 of the complaint petition. Beside this, o.p. also stated that the instant case is barred by limitation since the cause of action arose sometimes in 2010, but they have filed the instant case before this Forum on 25.3.13. O.ps. also stated that o.ps. wrote a letter to complainant no.1 on 3.8.12 which has been annexed by complainants, does not create the continuous cause of action from 2010 till 25.3.13 since the said letter has been issued by o.ps. to the complainants. So, that particular letter does not help to condone the complainants for delay and/or to remove the question of barred by limitation in the instant case. O.ps. submitted that they have made no deficiency of serviced to the complainants since complainants failed to establish their contention as stated in para 6 and 7 of the complaint petition by way of evidence. As such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            Upon considering the submissions of both the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we find that the receipts for Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- had been issued by o.ps. in the name of complainant no.1 only and there is no agreement appears in the record wherefrom it reveals that the said amount had been deposited by complainant no.1 for 5 years tour programme and availing of holiday resort render by o.ps. Beside this, from the very face of the record it appears that complainant no.2 has no locus standi to file the instant case along with complainant no.1since the receipts had been issued in the name of complainant no.1 only. Since no agreement has been filed by complainants in the record, so this Forum holds that complainant no.2 has no locus standi to be complainant no.2 along with complainant no.1. Beside this, the instant case is really suffered from barred by limitation since the cause of action arose in the year 2010 and the instant case has been filed on 25.3.13. The letter dt.3.8.12 issued by o.ps. to the complainant no.1 does not suffice to condone the delay for filing the case. So, this Forum holds that the instant case is also barred by limitation. This Forum has observed the aforesaid contention relying upon the judgment reported in 2003 CTJ 968 (CP) (NCDRC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has interalia observed that the question of limitation can be raised in any time during the proceedings. Moreover, the statement as has been made by complainants in para 6 and 7 of the complaint petition, complainants failed to substantiate those averments by evidence, hence, due to lack of evidence in support of the statement made in para 6 and 7 by complainants cannot taken into consideration.

            In view of the above findings and observations as stated hereinabove, this Forum holds that o.ps. had not made any deficiency of service as service providers to the consumers / complainants and complainants are not entitled to relief on the grounds as stated in the decision with reasons.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.