1. That the present Petition is filed under Section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Impugned Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (herein after State Commission) Punjab, Chandigarh. The Honle State Commission vide its order dated 01.07.2013 dismissed the First Appeal of the Petitioner filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (hereinafter, District Forum), Punjab, Chandigarh. 2. Facts in brief: The Complainant got a membership of the Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited/ OPs by paying full amount of Rs.66,650/- towards the purchase of 21 SFC Units on 10.04.2003. The membership period of the Complainant was from 2003 to 2035. Complainant in year 2004 and 2005 availed two holidays at the company resorts and also paid annual amenity charges of Rs.3570/-. As such, Complainant visited the OPs at Chandigarh office to get reserved the resort for the year 2006, but it was locked. It is averred that the company is in crisis hence closed; but later on 01.12.2009 complainant received OP letter with assurances that in the next 1 or 2 years there will be far reaching improvements in the services provided by the company. Therefore, complainant could not get the resort facility from 2006-2012 but he was kept on false promises and asked for annual amenity charges (AAC) for the year 2012. The Complainant paid Rs.66,650/- to the OPs towards the resort facility, but they neither provided the resorts facility nor returned the amount. Hence, complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs for refund of the amount with interest since 2006 till realization. 3. The District forum dismissed the complaint; subsequently the complainant preferred an appeal before State Commission. 4. The State Commission heard the matter and after considering evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. 5. Hence, the present revision petition before this commission. 6. On admission hearing we have heard the counsel for petitioner. We have perused the evidence on record, the rules of membership and findings of both the fora are mentioned as below. 7. In our observations it is the OPs never closed their business nor left their members helpless. OPs have sent intimation to all members about shifting of office from Manimajra to Chandigarh in the year 2012. The OPs were providing holidays to all members, except the defaulters during the years 2006 to 2012 who had not paid their Management/AAC Charges. It was further stated that the Complainant was sent reminders to pay the AAC Charges/ Management Charges for the period 2005 to 2012, but he failed to remit the outstanding dues of Rs.35,951/- till 31.12.2011. It was further stated that neither any request for refund was ever received from the Complainant, nor the same was permissible as per Rules 6.8.1 of the membership Rules which read as below; n case of cancellation of his/her/its units by the Member/Associate Member beyond 14 days, but within 21 days of commencement of holiday entitlement as per the SFCHU Certificate an amount equivalent to 20% of the Unit/s price paid to the company and cost of holidays including bonus holiday and compensation and service charge incurred by the company on credit card sale and membership fee paid to RCI and other benefits, if any, avail by the member/associate member, calculated on the basis of prevailing tariff applicable free individual travellers, shall be deducted. In case of cancellation after the period mentioned above, the entire amount paid by the member/associate member will be appropriated by the company and no refund of any kind whatsoever will be made to the members/associate members. 8. . It was further stated that the OPs, were always ready and willing to provide facilities, as per the membership Rules, but the Complainant neither made payment towards the AAC charges nor requested for any booking. 9. As per the terms and conditions of membership complainant was required to deposit annual amenity charges. The evidence on record reveals that the petitioner/Complainant did not deposit the annual amenity charges, from the year 2005 onwards. As per complainant evidence, he had received letters dated 01.12.2009 and 31.12.2011 from OP with demand of Rs.35,951/-. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OPs by serving legal notice on 30/8/2012 in which he did not mention any reference of OPs letter dated 1/12/2009., Therefore, it is clear that there were several communications between both the parties; hence the company was in existence and carrying on its activities. It was a wrong presumption of the Complainant that the company had closed the business as it suffered losses and went in the crisis. 10. The letter dated 31.12.2011 sent by OPs with the subject matter, etter of intimation on AAC payable for the year 2012 which reads as follows: Dear Sir/Madam, We hereby inform you that AAC for the year 2012 is fixed at Rs.5067 (Rupees Five Thousand Six Hundred and Seven only for Timeshare/units/postal receipts. The previous amounts intimated and not paid toward AAC is Rs.30344/- . 11. Hence, we are of considered view that the Complainant failed to comply with the conditions of the payment and did not continue the membership. There is no apparent error, illegality or infirmity in the orders of both the Fora below warranting our interference. Therefore, the Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.