INDU KALRA Vs. ORPHIC RESORTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula ('State Commission', for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondents-OPs and set aside the order dated 06.04.2007 passed by the District Forum, Panipat in Complaint no. 369/2006. Vide its order dated 06.04.2007, the District Forum had accepted the complaint of the petitioners by granting following reliefs:-

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the petitioners who are original complainants had become members of the Time Share Scheme launched by the OPs, who are respondents herein, vide agreement dated 15.06.2000. Under the scheme, the OPs had offered a gift coupon for the customers for two nights and three days at their resorts. The gift coupon was valid for 60 days from the date of its issue. The petitioners purchased a gift coupon bearing no. 30265 dated 15.06.2000 in which there was complementary stay for two nights and three days at Mussoorie. They deposited Rs.10,350/- at the time of agreement with the OPs. It is further stated by the petitioners that they had applied for complementary stay but no response was given by the OPs and rather they demanded the balance amount and then the balance amount was paid by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners applied to the office of the respondents for availing the facilities of resort at Goa from 25.12.2006 to 31.12.2006 in the month of April, 2006 but the respondents flatly refused to accept the request. In the circumstances, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the petitioners approached the District Forum with their complaint in question.

(3.) On being noticed, the respondents contested the complaint and denied the version of the petitioners by taking the plea that the petitioners had not availed the gift coupon which was valid for 60 days from the date of its issue. It was also denied that the petitioners had ever applied to the respondents for availing the holidays at Goa from 25.12.2006 to 31.12.2006. According to the respondents, as per the agreement executed with the petitioners, the membership of the petitioners was for Bhimtal Resort for ten days and in case the petitioners wanted to have holidays at any place other than the company's resort at Bhimtal or Koshi then they could avail the same through RCI (Resort Condominiums International) which is an independent International Exchange Organization for reciprocal exchange programme for resort members. As per Clause 4 of the agreement all the communications with regard to the Exchange Programme of holidays could be made directly to the RCI. With these averments, the respondents while denying any kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint as stated above. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the respondents carried the same in appeal before the State Commission which allowed their appeal and reversed the order of the District Forum vide its impugned order.