Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1175/2017

Sterling Holiday Resorts India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. M. Shahid Rehman - Opp.Party(s)

V. Mohan

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

Appeal No. 1175/2017

 

Sterling Holiday Resorts India Ltd. No.7, City Towers, 3rd Cross Street, Kasturibainagar, Adyar, Chennai-20 Rep. by its DGM-Legal (By Sri. V. Mohan) V/s	……Appellant
M. Shahid Rehman Proprietor, M/s. M.S.R. Constructions, Door No.8.14.1321, Opp. Jamia Masjid, Cross, Kudroli, Mangalore-575003, Dakshina Kannada (By Sri. S. Thyagarajan)	…Respondent

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 15.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.190/2015 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant entered into time share agreement with OP and paid consideration of Rs.39,000/- which is inclusive of the cost of the right to stay in an apartment in the Coorg holiday resort and enjoy the amenities for one week per year and Rs.21,500/- towards annual subscription towards the customers facility for the entire period of 99 years.  Though the construction and development of holiday resport was to be completed by the end of 1996, inspite of lapse of 19 years OP failed to complete the same.  Now the P has been demanding from the complainant a sum of Rs.4,542/- towards Annual Amenity Charges (AAC) for the year 2014 which was not contemplated under the agreement entered into by the OP with complainant and is illegal.  Hence, the complaint.  The OP contented that the customers owning the resort at Coorg were allowed to avail holidays at the available resorts belonging to the OP at various destinations.  This facility was enjoyed by the complainant as well.  Clause 13(c) of the agreement between the complainant and the OP clearly shows that customer has to pay requisite charges for use and enjoyment of amenities.  The OP had opted not to collect the Annual Amenity Charges (AAC) from the customers whose resort were not ready.  
3. The District Forum allowed the complaint.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order OP is in appeal.
5. Perused the impugned order and grounds of appeal.  It is observed in the impugned order the OP inspite of receipt of entire consideration of Rs.39,000/-, even after lapse of nearly 20 years from the date of agreement failed to complete the project at Coorg and further demanded Annual Maintenance Charges from the customers.  There is said to be deficiency in service on the part of OP in not completing the Holiday Resort project and demanding Annual Amenity Charges.  Accordingly, ordered OP to provide  Holiday resort to the complainant either in Karwar or in Ooty and not to demand any extra charges other than the agreement dated 10.02.1195 and also pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation expenses.  Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order.  The appeal is dismissed.
6. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Forum for needful.

 

MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT

 

CV*