Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal was lying unattended since 2003. On 5th July, 2011 this appeal was placed before us for disposal. On finding that both the parties were absent, we had directed office to issue notice to both the parties and it was made returnable on 11.08.2011. Accordingly office had issued to both the parties by R.P.A.D. but endorsement was not received on 11.08.2011 and therefore, this matter was adjourned to today. Today, we are finding registered post envelope returned by the post with postal endorsement that it was sent at the given address, i.e. the address of Sterling Holiday Resorts (I) Ltd. So, we hold that Appellant has been served the notice but they are not coming hence, we have proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.
(2) We have decided to peruse the appeal memo and documents on record. We are finding that Complainant – Pritam J. Jain had deposited `14,250/- and purchased two units of the scheme floated by Sterling Holiday Resort known as ‘Heritage India’. He paid the amount in October, 1996 but Appellant Company had not initiated any scheme. Complainant got knowledge that there was failure of the scheme of the Opponent. Hence, he informed Appellant for cancellation of membership and asked for refund of money with interest vide his letter dated 10.03.1997. Even after sending letter the Opponent did not pay the amount. He, therefore, sent registered notice through Advocate on 17.08.1998, but the Opponent did not pay the amount. Hence, he filed consumer complaint against the Opponent.
(3) The District Forum sent two notices to the Respondent. The District Forum received acknowledgements and in spite of service of notice Opponent was not interested to contest the claim by filing affidavit in reply and therefore, complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the Opponent. On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the District Forum clearly recorded the finding that the Complainant had purchased two units for the scheme ‘Heritage India’ floated by the Opponent who is Appellant herein and he had not made any arrangement for giving units to the Complainant as per their scheme. The Complainant therefore asked for refund of monies and in spite of service of letter and thereafter service of notice through Advocate the amount was not refunded by the Opponent. Therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the Opponent to refund amount of `14,250/- after taking cancellation charges as per their rules, along with interest @18% per annum and also awarded costs of `500/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed this appeal.
(4) In filing appeal there is delay of one day, but we are of the view that the delay is properly explained and delay is required to be condoned by allowing Misc.Application No.252/2003, so that we can decide the appeal on merits. Hence, delay is condoned.
(5) We have perused the impugned order, affidavits and documents placed on record. We are finding that the Appellant had failed to provide two units to the Complainant as per their Scheme ‘Heritage India’ as per brochure and as per agreement and therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed refund of monies to the Complainant after deduction of cancellation charges as per rules framed by the original Opponent. Said order, in our view, is just and proper and it does not call for any interference by this Commission. We are finding no substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc. Application No.252/2003 filed for condonation of delay is allowed.
(ii) Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
(iii) Appeal is dismissed on merit.
(iv) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 12th October, 2011.
