Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 01.01.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No.251/2000.
(2) The facts leading to the appeal can be summarized as under:
The original Complainant/Appellant had purchased “Time Share” of “The Clifftop Club” paying an amount of Rs.1,35,125/- by purchase agreement dated 27.09.1998. Accordingly the Opponent/Respondent had issued the Complainant/Appellant membership, apartment number and duration certificate. The Opponent had claimed that the club has its resorts in various countries. The Complainant/Appellant communicated to the Opponent that he is visiting Leicester, U.K. from 16.05.2000 to 30.05.2000 and required to confirm reservation in his resort on 24.08.1999. The Opponent No.1 vide letter dated 23.09.1999 informed to enquire from the Banglore Office . On enquiry with Banglore Office it is informed that the resort will be operational by the end of 1999. The Complainant/Appellant tried to enquire from the Opponent, however, there was no response. Hence, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint praying to cancel the agreement entered with Opponents, order the Opponents to pay an amount of rs.1,35,125/- along with interest @18% per annum from 28.10.2000, Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
(3) The Opponents/Respondents contested the complaint contending that the complainant/Appellant is not a consumer and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. The Opponents further contended that the agreement is ownership transfer agreement and the Complainant/Appellant can also transfer his ownership right. The Opponents are not the service providers.
(4) The District Forum after hearing both the parties had dismissed the complaint vide order dated 01.01.2004. Being aggrieved by the order present appeal is filed.
(5) The matter was taken from the sine die list and intimated the date of hearing to both the parties. However, the parties remained absent. Hence, we proceeded with the matter on merit.
(6) Admittedly the Complainant/Appellant had purchased the time share in the resort to be constructed by the Opponent. Perusal of the agreement reveals that the resort would be operational by the end of 1999. The important question in the present appeal is whether the Complainant/Appellant is a Consumer and the complaint filed is consumer complaint? From perusal of the agreement it is seen that the Complainant/Appellant has purchased the time share in resorts of the Opponents. This time share can be transferred. While using the resort the Complainant is owner. Hence providing resort is not a service. When providing resort is not a service the Complainant/Appellant is not a Consumer. While passing the impugned order the District Forum relied on the order I(1997) CPJ 26 (NC) passed by the National Commission in Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Kirit P. Doshi and others.
(7) We agree with the reasoning given by the District Forum. We do not find any substance in appeal filed by the Complainant/Appellant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The order passed by the District Forum dated 01.01.2004 in Consumer Complaint No.251/2000 is hereby confirmed.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 20th September, 2011.
