DHANPAT SINGH JAIN vs DALMIA RESORT INTERNATIONAL

THE case of the appellant is that the Sales Representative of the Respondent visited to Calcutta and met the Appellant several times and as per proposal of the respondent, the complainant and another Hemraj Baid jointly entered into an agreement of vacation time share in the Holiday Resort-cum-Club at Goa with the respondent and paid Rs. 11,999/- on 7.10.87. 2.In or about 21st September, 1988 the respondent circulated in "Dalmia Resort time - Volume VIII" that an amount of Rs. 75/- would be required for per adult per night and surcharge on telephone, electricity, water and gas would have to be paid towards service charges, in addition to maintenance contribution of Rs. 3,000/-which was duly paid by the appellant on maintenance account. THE appellant opposed the said letter dated 21.9.88 of the respondent vide his letter dated 7.12.89 and demanded refund of the Earnest Money of Rs. 11,900/- including maintenance charges with interest, as the sudden proposal in service charges by the respondent was beyond the scope of the agreement entered into by and between the parties the appellant could not concede to the said proposal. THE respondent by its letter dated 21.9.89 demanded the payment of balance of Rs. 22,728/- within 30th September, 1989 along with the interest for delay in making the payment. 3. THE respondent contested the matter and filed the written statement before the Calcutta District Forum and contended inter-alia that the complainant suppressed the material fact and he broke the terms to contract inasmuch as the appellant failed to pay the 2nd and 3rd installment within a stipulated time and the appellant was liable to pay the unpaid amount with interest. It was alleged that the respondent was also entitled to increase the amount of contribution towards the maintenance charges. It was also contended that the complainant raised protest against the escalation money after 15 months of circulation published on 21.9.88 in the said "Dalmia Resort time" and also sought for cancellation of the agreement. It is alleged that the complainant had cancelled the agreement without sufficient cause and without fulfiling his part of contract and as such the respondents sought for dismissal of the appeal in limini. ORDER 4. Admittedly the appellant with another jointly entered into an agreement with the respondent on 29.10.87 to avail of Holiday Resort-cum-Club at Goa and paid Rs. 11,900/- to the respondent with the assurance to pay Rs. 8,900/- as the 2nd instalment within 3 months and also to pay a further sum of Rs. 8,900/- within six months thereafter against 3rd instalment. THE complainant promised to pay Rs. 3000/- as contribution towards maintenance within 15 days from the demand thereof. THE appellant also agreed to pay further sum on account of maintenance charges as and when required. It is also admitted that the Complainant/Appellant did not avail of any opportunity though he paid Rs. 3,000/- towards maintenance charges and also the agreement was cancelled by him by his letter dated 9.12.88. It is needless to mention that the appellant did not pay the 2nd and 3rd instalments. THE respondent wrote a letter on 9.2.90 that they are ready and willing to refund Rs. 11,900/ - to the appellant-complainant but thereafter the respondent by its letter dated 15.5.90 retreating from their earlier stand forfeited the sum of Rs. 8,910/- and the sum of Rs. 1,350/- as against maintenance charges of Rs. 3,000/- duly paid and by the settlement of the account as indicated above the respondent refunded only Rs. 1,640/- towards the aggregated amount sum of Rs. 11,900/- paid by the appellant. THE aforesaid decision by the respondent in supercession of its earlier stand to refund the entire advance money of Rs. 11,900/- is not acceptable by us. We hold that the respondent is barred by the principle of promissory estopple, once the respondent committed to refund entire advance amount of Rs. 11,900/- to the appellant it must be honoured as per its own promise subsequently. 5. In view of our aforesaid discussion we allow the appeal and direct the respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 11,900/- paid by the appellant within a month from the date of communication of this order. We are not inclined to award any damages or compensation to the appellant. THEre will be no order as to cost. THE appeal is thus disposed of. Appeal disposed of.