LAWS(NCD)-2005-7-73

ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. ASIA RESORTS LIMITED

Decided On July 08, 2005
ASHWANI KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Asia Resorts Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment and order dated 21.4.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 841 of 2003, we find that the two disputed points raised by the appellant could not legally be gone into in the exercise of the summary jurisdiction conferred on this State Commission set up under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as C.P. Act) as amended up -to -date.

(2.) THE first point, which has been pressed in this appeal is about the enhancement of the utility charges to be paid by the time share holder who has entered into an agreement with the respondent -Asia Resorts Limited. The complainants purchased the time share and according to their contention, the agreement was for a period of 49 years. The appellants utilized the time share facilities in the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. It has been contended that the respondent imposed actual maintenance charges @ Rs. 2,500, which is quite unreasonable besides being highly excessive and by doing so, the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practice.

(3.) SO far as the second submissions is mentioned, it relates to the examination by this State Commission or for that matter the District Forum about the fixation of utility charges being unreasonable and excessive. It is now well settled by the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short hereinafter to be referred as National Commission) that the Fora set up under the C.P. Act cannot go into the price fixation by the service provider and in case the consumer complainant intends to challenge the same, he cannot do so by filing a complaint under the C.P. Act and instead he is to challenge the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction before a Civil Court being a civil dispute. Reference may be made to the case of Lal Chand v. Delhi Development Authority, II (1995) CPJ 35 (NC)=1995 (1) CPC 560 (NC), wherein the Honble National Commission has held that fixation of price of a flat or plot is not within the jurisdiction of Consumer Agencies.