Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1268/2013

SPRING HOLIDAYS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MINAKSHI KAKKAR & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 29.04.2016 

First Appeal- 1268/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 21.02.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 207/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi)

 

M/s Spring Holidays Ltd.,

Through it’s A.R./director,

Having its office at:

B-5/1, Second Floor,

Sector-4, Rohini,

Delhi-85.

 

•  

Versus

1. Minakshi Kakkar,

R/o Flat No.19, Harit Niketan,

West Enclave, Pitam Pura,

New Delhi-110034.

 

2. Mohit Kakkar,

R/o Flat No.19, Harit Niketan,

West Enclave, Pitam Pura,

New Delhi-110034.

 

3. Mrs. Davina K. Dabra (Prop),

D’Chalet Resort, Main Club House Road,

Manali, Himachal Pradesh.

 

Also at: 90/27 A, Basement,

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17.

                                                ….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the “Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 21.2.13 passed in Complaint Case No.207/2008 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (in short the “District Forum”) whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 & 2/complainants has been allowed and the appellant/OP as well as respondent No.3 i.e. OP No.2 before the District Forum have been directed to pay Rs.1 lac by way of compensation to the respondent No.1 & 2/complainants jointly and severally.  It is further ordered that compensation carries interest @ 18% from the date of complaint till payment.
2. The respondent No.1 & 2/complainants had filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum alleging therein that on the representations of the appellant/OP No.1, they had purchased the membership of respondent No.3/OP No.2 and an agreement was executed between the parties whereby the respondent No.1 & 2/complainants had purchased membership of one Studio Red Type for a total consideration of Rs.95,000/-.  It was alleged that in order to enjoy the membership, a card from RCI and other relevant documents were to be sent to the respondent No.1 & 2/complainants to avail holidays.  However, nothing was sent.  Thereupon a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 & 2/complainants alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP No.1 and respondent No.3/OP No.2.
3. Counsel for appellant has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP No.1.  It is submitted that appellant/OP No.1 has fulfilled its part in terms of agreement entered into between the respondent No.1 & 2 and appellant/OP No.1.  It is further submitted that appellant/OP No.1 was only marketier of respondent No.3/OP No.2 and has fulfilled all its obligations.  It is contended that Ld. District Forum has not appreciated the facts and the agreement entered into between the appellant/OP No.1 and that of respondent No.3/OP No.2.  It is contended that it was only respondent No.3 who had to provide membership card from RCI and other documents to the respondent No.1 & 2/complainants.  It is further contended that the Ld. District Forum has not considered the Agreement which was executed between the appellant/OP No.1 and respondent No.3/OP No.2.  It is further contended that the money received from respondent No.1 & 2/complainants had already been transferred to respondent No.3/OP No.2.  It is contended that all the documents filed by appellant/OP No.1 before the District Forum have not been discussed at all and non-speaking order has been passed.
4. Respondent No.3/OP No.2 was proceeded ex-parte before the Ld. District Forum.  The matter was duly contested by the appellant/OP No.1 before the District Forum by filing detail written statement and evidence in the form of affidavit was also filed.  The documents filed by the appellant/OP No.1 have not been discussed in the impugned order.  It has only been recorded in the impugned order that the Agreement and the evidence of respondent No.1 & 2/complainants establish false assurances and promises on the part of the appellant/OP No.1.  However, the same are not discussed in the impugned order.  No reasoning is given at all.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2/complainants has not been able to point out anything to the contrary.  Rather has stated that matter be remanded back for hearing afresh.
6. Considering that all the material evidence has not been discussed in the impugned order and that the Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 & 2/complainants has also agreed for remanding back the matter to Ld. District Forum, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand back the matter to the District Forum for deciding afresh in accordance with law.
7. Let the parties appear before the District Forum on 13.7.16. 
8. On the said date, appellant/OP No.1 shall pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- which has been imposed vide separate order passed today for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.  Thereafter the District Forum shall hear the matter and dispose of the case in accordance with law.
9. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. 

10.  A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member