ASHWANI KUMAR vs Asia Resorts Limited

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.

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. In the second place, it has been contended that the complainants applied for refund of the time share purchased after utilizing it for the period mentioned above and the same was not refunded and, hence, the respondent committed deficiency in service.

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.

IN case even on the premises of the enhancement of these charges being unfair trade practice, the same cannot be examined here because that aspect of unfair trade practice involves the examination of the basis for fixing particular charges by the service provider. In case the appellant wants to challenge the same, he is to seek remedy as indicated above before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. So far as the second and the last submissions are concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the terms and conditions of the agreement wherein there is no specific clause enabling the holder of a time share to withdraw from the scheme in the midway and in the absence of any specific term and condition, the action of the respondent in not allowing withdrawal from the time share cannot be termed as deficiency in service and the remedy again regarding withdrawal and refund of the time share and its value would lie before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The District Forum has examined the merit of the case, which according to our considered opinion, it could not legally do so.

RESULTANTLY , we find that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint, though for different reasons, we hold that the complaint did not lie before the District Forum. The remedy lay by approaching a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for which the appellants are relegated. Disposed of accordingly. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal disposed of.