LAWS(NCD)-2016-8-68

INDIRA BHARADWAJ W/O. R.K. BHARADWAJ R/O. HOUSE NO.149.SECTOR, Vs. M/S. DALMIA RESORTS INTERNATIONAL P LTD. 4 SCINDIA HOUSE, CANNAUGHT PLACE,THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE NEW DELHI

Decided On August 29, 2016
Indira Bharadwaj W/O. R.K. Bharadwaj R/O. House No.149.Sector, Appellant
V/S
M/S. Dalmia Resorts International P Ltd. 4 Scindia House, Cannaught Place,Through Its Authorised Representative New Delhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 21.01.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in First Appeal No. 951/2008, Indira Bhardwaj Vs. M/s. Dalmia Resorts International (P) Ltd. , vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh, dated 14.05.2008, in Consumer Complaint No. 972/2007, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner, Indira Bharadwaj made payment of Rs. 57,000.00 in four quarterly instalments to the opposite party (OP), M/s. Dalmia Resorts International (P) Ltd. for allotment of a vacation time share for a period of 99 years at their resort at Mussoorie, U.P. The said amount of Rs. 57,000.00 was paid as interest free advance and the cost of every unit week in each year was assessed as Rs. 575.75.00, which was to be re-appropriated in the respective years, out of the total amount of Rs. 57,000.00 paid. An agreement was also signed between the parties known as Vacation Owners Agreement: Mussoorie on 01.08.1996, laying down the terms and conditions of the transactions between the parties. The case of the complainant is that as per her understanding, no extra payment was to be made by the complainant to the OP. However, the OP demanded Rs. 3,000.00 per annum as annual maintenance charges (AMC) and Rs. 800.00 as utility charges and told her that these charges would accrue annually, irrespective of the fact that the resort was utilised or not, by the complainant. Alleging unfair trade practise and deficiency in service on account of levying of additional charges by the OP, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP not to charge the annual maintenance charges of Rs. 3,000.00 and utility charges of Rs. 800.00 from her. It was also stated in the complaint that, in the alternative, the OPs should be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 57,000.00 along with interest @ 18% per annum and the complainant should also be compensated with grant of Rs. 50,000.00 for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000.00 as litigation cost.

(3.) In the written statement field before the State Commission, the OP admitted that the sum of Rs. 57,000.00 was taken by them from the complainant in four quarterly instalments as interest free advance for 99 years. They stated, however, that they had duly entered into an agreement with the complainant, laying down all the terms and conditions. It was also stated that by virtue of clause 10(g) of the agreement, the complainant had agreed to pay the applicable charges/fees/price decided by the OP from time to time. Regarding the refund of Rs. 575.75.00, it was to be paid every year, even when the facility was not used. It was stated by the OP that an advance notice of 60 clear days was required to be issued to the OP by the complainant, if the unit week was not to be utilised in a particular year.