BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NOs. 782/2015 & 1010/2015
APPEAL NO. 782/2015
1. | Thomas Cook Insurance Services (India) Limited, Transferee : Sterling Holiday Restorts India Limited, No.7, City Towers, 3rd Cross Street,Kasturibai Nagar, Adyar,Chnnai – 20, Reptd. by its DGM – Legal. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | Thomas Cook Insurance Services (India) Limited,(Transferee : Sterling Holiday Resorts India Ltd.,) The Classic Court Building, 2nd Floor, 9/1, Richmond Road, Bengaluru 25. (By Sri Varadarajan Mohan) | |
V/s
Mr. Khushroo Rustumji, No.12, Serpentine Street, Richmond Town, Bengaluru 560 025. (By Sri C.K. Nandakumar) | ..…Respondent/s |
APPEAL NO. 1010/2015
Mr. Khushroo Rustumji, S/o Mr. Homi Rustomji, Aged about 76 years, No.12, Serpentine Street, Richmond Town, Bengaluru 560 025. (By Sri C.K. Nandakumar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Sterling Holiday Resorts India Limited, No.7, City Towers, 3rd Cross Street, Kasturibai Nagar, Adyar, Chnnai–600 020. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Sterling Holiday Resorts India Ltd., The Classic Court Buildings, 2nd Floor,9/1, Richmond Road, Bengaluru 560 025. (By Sri Varadarajan Mohan) | |
COMMON ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the one order dt.31.03.2015 passed in CC.No.2050/2012 on the file of 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. The Complainant has preferred the Appeal No.1010/2015 and the Opposite Party has preferred Appeal No.782/2015. Hence, both these appeals are taken together and being disposed of by a common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased time shares for two weeks in Puri by paying Rs.1,44,000/- although he had no intention of vacationing at Puri in Orissa and at the same time, the Opposite Party assured for exchange offer if the complainant willing to go to Goa with a prior intimation of three months, they can extend the holiday of two weeks which was booked by the complainant, but, the complainant informed prior to six months to book Goa, but, the Opposite Party have not arranged as there was nothing is available in the exchange for the Christmas/New Year weeks at Goa. Thus the Opposite Party rendered deficiency in service in not arranging the two weeks holiday to Goa during Christmas/New Year. Subsequently, the complainant further alleged that the Opposite Party came up with a new project in the year 1996 called Goa Crown Vagator Beach Resort Project and the complainant was influenced by the said project and took up two weeks namely 51 & 52 by further receiving 10% discount and the purchase amount is Rs.8,20,000/- out of which the complainant paid Rs.5,03,025/- for both time shares i.e. 2,52,375/- and Rs.2,50,650/-, but after payment of the said amounts, the Opposite Party had not started any projects as assured. Even after completion of 15 years, the Opposite Party had not progressed in this regard. Subsequently, the complainant made several correspondences and requested for the payment of refund of the entire amount along with interest for which the Opposite Party as a gesture of good relationship has agreed to pay meager amount, hence, filed a complaint before the District Commission and demanded for payment of entire amount paid towards the said project. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay the entire amount paid by the complainant along with interest at 6% p.a.
3. Being not satisfied the interest, the complainant preferred an appeal No.1010/2015 before this Commission.
4. The Opposite Party on the other hand had submitted that it is true that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.5,03,025/- in the Opposite Party project namely Goa Crown Vagator Beach Resort Project in Goa. The said project was not completed due to financial crisis arose in their company and as a good gesture, they assured to pay an amount by deducting 10%, but the District Commission instead of considering their submission had allowed the complaint and directed them to pay the entire amount paid with interest.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Opposite Party preferred an Appeal No.782/2015 before this Commission. Heard both sides.
6. There is no dispute that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5,03,025/- towards the new project introduced by the Opposite Party which was not completed and admittedly, the Opposite Party assured to pay the amount by deducting 10% though there was no any agreement for payment of any interest. The District Commission after considering the payment made by the complainant which earned nothing has awarded 6% interest. We found the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper and no interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The both Appeal Nos. 782/2015 and 1010/2015 are dismissed.
The amount deposited in Appeal No.782/2015 shall be transmitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Keep the original order in Appeal No.782/2015 and a copy of the same is in Appeal No.1010/2015.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
