Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/722

SATISH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAGHAV FARMS & RESORTS PVT.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                 Date of Decision: 15.10.2015

First Appeal No. 722/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 04.07.2012 passed in complaint case No. 579/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Shiekh Sarai, New Delhi)

 

In the matter of:

 

Satish Sharma

C-2/2499, Vasant Kunj

New Delhi-110070                                    Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Raghav Farms & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

128/B-1, Mohammadpur Near Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi

2. RCI India Pvt. Ltd.

Brigade Gardens

19, Church Street

Bangalore-560 001                              Respondents

                                                               

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                         -                       Member

 

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

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      Appellant has impugned the orders dt. 04.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainants who are the husband and wife, purchased time share holiday facility from Raghav Farms & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (in short the OP). Grievance of the complainants/appellants herein is that their experience with the OPs had been sour and bitter because of the ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the OP. Appellant contended that he made correspondence with the OPs who raised periodical monetary demands. Complainants/appellants herein have listed various payments made by them to the OPs (para 8 of the complaint). The complainant allegedly paid an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/-. Sole contention of the complainants/appellants herein is that instead of pleasure they were getting only wrong treatment. They felt humiliation. On these grounds appellants have prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- allegedly paid by them to the OPs/respondents. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and out of pocket expenses of Rs. 15,000/- have also sought. In reply the stand taken by the OP is that the appellants herein had not been paying maintenance charges. They had been enjoying the facility of time sharing membership since 2001. They did not pay EMC for the period 2009 for which a circular dt. 11.12.2008 was issued.
2.      In relation to the deficiency of service, OP-1 submitted that there is no other member who complained of any ‘deficiency of service’.
3.      We have heard at length the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant/appellant herein Sh. Kapil Mitra and Counsel for the OP-1 Sh. S.K.Aggarwal and Counsel for the OP-2 Sh. Saurabh Bindal.
4.      Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that the issue that the complainants were satisfied with the facilities or not cannot be adjudicated upon for the reason that the nature of facilities available does not find any mention in the record before the Court. Whether the facilities were upto the mark or not, again cannot be adjudicated upon. OPs were required to provide the said facilities subject to their availability. For these reasons, it was held that the there was no ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OPs. Complainants have been availing of the preferential membership and the facilities for a long period starting from the year 2000 uptil the year 2008.
5.      Ld. Counsel for the Complainants/appellants herein Sh. Kapil Mitra Advocate during the course of arguments submitted that the experience of the complainants in the year 2002 was bad whereas they found facilities upto the mark in the year 2003. The complainants did not choose to terminate the agreement after having faced bad experience. They continued with the agreement and experienced good and bad visits alternatively. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the complainants to harp upon the alleged bad experiences. Whether a particular experience is good or bad is a matter of subjectivity and cannot be adjudicated upon by the consumer courts in the absence of the nature of the facilities agreed to between the parties.
6.      Before parting it may be mentioned here that the Ld. Counsel for the appellant herein submitted that the complainants be refunded the proportionate amount of not availing the facilities after 2009. We have perused the complaint. Clearly appellants have not prayed for refund of any proportionate amount for the facilities not availed of by them after the year 2008. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is hence dismissed.
7.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
8.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)

MEMBER

​