Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1987

SURESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

STERLING HOLIDAY RESORT (INDIA) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

15 Mar 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 1987 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 07.09.2017 passed in C.C.No.101/2016 by the District Commission, Ratlam)

 

SURESH.                                                                                                            …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS (INDIA) LTD & ANR.                                     …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 

 

                                      O R D E R

15.03.2022

 

          Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondents.

           

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :            

                         This appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is directed against the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (For short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.101/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant is dismissed.

2.                Heard.

3.                The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties for not refunding the membership fees, after the complainant had opted for cancellation of vacation ownership plan.  It is alleged that the complainant opted for cancellation on the basis that he was informed that membership was for 2 years as against opposite parties’ contention that the same was meant for 25 years.

 

-2-

4.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that he had made an application dated 31.08.2017 before the District Commission, whereby the complainant had sought from the opposite party/respondent, the original customer application form in order to demonstrate that signatures on the said form were not done by the complainant.  It is submitted in the said application that the said form will be instrumental in deciding the complaint case. 

5.                The District Commission vide impugned order dismissed the said application filed by the complainant stating that it will not effect the merits of the case. It is further held that the matter involved complicated questions of facts and therefore, it cannot be decided by the District Commission in summary proceedings.  The District Commission accordingly directed the complainant to approach the Civil Court.

6.                After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on careful perusal of the appeal memo and record of the District Commission, it is observed that the District Commission ought to have decided the matter on merits of the case on going through documentary evidence available in the record. The District Commission could have directed the parties to file additional evidence, if the evidence available in record were found to be inadequate.  Therefore, dismissing the complaint and directing the complainant to approach civil court in such a matter, which could be adjudicated by the District Commission is not consonant. 

7.                In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded back the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits, in accordance with law.

-3-

8.                Parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence along with affidavits, as and when directed by the District Commission, within the time so specified.

9.                Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 30.05.2022.

10.               Record of the District Commission be sent at the earliest.

11.               The District Commission is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, after informing the other parties.

9.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

                                                                        (Dr. Monika Malik)                                        

                                                                         Presiding Member