Date of Filing: 12/05/2011

        Date of Order: 14/07/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  14^th DAY OF JULY 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 908 OF 2011

Sri. Kempanna Chetty,

Aged About 53 years,

R/at: No.20, Dinnur Main

Road, R.T. Nagar,

BANGALORE-560 032.                

(Rep. by Advocate Jagannatha)                                                  Complainant.

-V/s-

1) M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts,

Off: No.406, Old No.271,

T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet,

Chennai-600 018.

Rep. by its Managing Director.

2) M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts

India Limited, No.9/1,

Classic Court, 2^nd Floor,

Richmond Road,

Bangalore-560 025.

Rep. by its Managing Director.                 

(Rep. by Advocate Rangarajan & Prabhakharan)                   Opposite parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

            The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint made under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7,71,000/-, are necessary:-

            The complainant is a business and based on the advertisement of the opposite party that they have launched the service of carrying on “Royal Sterling International Holiday Club (India) Private Limited”, the complainant applied for membership with the opposite party by paying necessary amounts.  On receipt of the amounts the opposite party issued membership/customer No.211747.  As per the demand of the opposite party the complainant had paid between 08.08.2000 and 31.10.2005 a sum of Rs.4,71,000/-.  During holidays the complainant visited number of places on the assurance and words of the opposite party, wherein the complainant came to know it has not provided good services.  After return of the said places, the complainant brought it to the notice of the opposite party sought refund of the amount, but they went on postponing the same ultimately the complainant issued notice to the opposite party on 15.04.2011 as it has not refunded the money this complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and refund of the amount of Rs.4,71,000/-.

2.        In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

            The complainant had purchased 2 Timeshares from the opposite parties bearing membership No. 3938-A of Yercaud Resort and paid a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards cost of the time share and Rs.6,950/- for annual amenity charges and the membership No.211747 for Ooty-fern Hill vide membership No.23995 and paid Rs.53,231/- and Rs.4,200/- towards annual amenity.  The complainant requested the transfer of membership No.3938-A of Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Limited to Royal Sterling (International) Holiday Club and surrendered his rights with the opposite parties on 29.11.2002 and executed a Hire Purchase Agreement.  As per the request of the complainant the membership No.23995 has been converted to Sterling Happy Vistas – Units and was allotted 42 units in the scheme vide membership No.211747.  For conversion to Sterling Happy Vistas the complainant has paid Rs.38,500/- on 29.11.2002 towards the difference in the cost of allotting the said 42 units.  The complainant is entitled to utilize the 42 units as per the terms of the allotment and it cannot be cancelled beyond the period of 21 days from the date of allotment.  After conversion the rights privileges and the interest of the complainant stands terminated.  The complainant has issued notice on 15.04.2011 which has been duly replied on 24.05.2011 asking the complainant to take up his issue with Royal Sterling International Holidays Club.  The complainant has not paid any other amount to the opposite parties as stated in the complaint.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.  The complaint is barred by time.

3.        To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits.  The arguments were heard.

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the complaint?
2. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. What order?

5.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A)       :           In the Negative

Point (B):           In the Positive

Point (C):In the Negative

Point (D):           As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (D):-

6.        Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased 2 Timeshares from the opposite parties in one membership No.3938-A of Yercaud Resort and paid Rs.38,950/- in all and also another membership No.211747 of Ooty-fern Hill vide membership No.23995 by paying Rs.57,431/- in all.  It is also established that on 29.11.2002 the complainant surrendered his rights with respect to membership No.3938-A with the opposite party and got it transferred to Royal Sterling (International) Holiday Club and also executed an Hire Purchase Agreement in this regard.  Further it is also established that his membership with the opposite party in membership No.23995 has been converted by him to Sterling Happy Vistas – Units on 29.11.2002.  This is fully established by the documents produced by the opposite party.  This has not been challenged or denied by the complainant.  When that is the case from 29.11.2002 no relationship of service provider and the consumer exists between the parties.  In this case the complainant would have been impleaded the Royal Sterling (International) Holiday Club and the Sterling Happy Vistas Units but that has not been done, but impleaded only the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

7.        The entire transaction between the parties to this complaint ended on 11.10.2002.  This complaint is filed on 12.05.2011.  Hence complaint is hopelessly barred by time as rightly contended.

8.        The complainant has stated that he had paid amounts to the opposite parties between 08.08.2000 and 31.10.2005.  Beyond 29.11.2002 the amounts were not received by the opposite parties, it is received by Royal Sterling International Holiday Club (India) Private Limited.  Even from 31.10.2005 the complaint has not been filed within two years.  Hence it is barred by time.

9.        Even otherwise the complainant has simply stated that during holidays the complainant visited number of places on the assurance and words of the opposite party wherein he came to know that service provided are not good that’s all.  This is a bald statement.  When he had given? To which place he had gone?  What was the services assured?  What was the services provided?  How it is not up to the quality or quantity?, etc.,.  Hence it cannot be said that the complaint is well within time.

10.      Further the complainant has issued notice to the opposite party on 15.04.2011 to which the opposite party has replied denying its liability on 24.05.2011.  The notice will not enlarge the limitation.

11.      What is the reason for coming late to the Court for these nine years is not explained.  The complainant has made an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay along with the complaint.  This was not pressed in to service nor brought it to our notice at any time.  It is only on verification of the record at the time of passing this order this Forum came to know about this application, that too while passing this order.  Even in this application it is not stated what is the total delay? why there was delay? how there was delay? what is the cause for the delay? no such thing has been stated.  The complainant simply stated he is ignorant or illiterate that’s all.  The documents produced by the complainant himself clearly establishes he is not ignorant or illiterate.  He has executed deed of indemnity, he has executed deed of surrender, he has executed transfer of the Holidays, etc.,.  Hence under these circumstances it cannot be said that there is justifiable grounds to condone the delay.  No sufficient cause is shown.

12.      Further what is the deficiency in service, that is not explained, not even a word has been stated.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Dismissed.

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14^th Day of July 2011)

MEMBER                                        MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT