Case nº Revision Petition No. 948 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 20/11/2009 in Appeal No. 135/2009 of the State Commission West Bengal) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 09, 2010 (case 1. Amita Poddar and Anr. 2. Anirudha Poddar Vs Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. and Anr)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Anant Bhushan, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. K. L. Nandwani, Advocate |
| President | Mr. R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | December 09, 2010 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
-
Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, he State Commission in S.C. Case No. FA/09/135 dismissing the complaint, the original complainants have filed the present petition.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-complainants and the learned counsel for the respondents and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.
-
The facts which led to the fling of the complaint have been amply-noted in the orders of the fora below. For deciding the petition, we may notice that alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties-respondents that they failed to provide the time share membership in accordance with the agreement reached between the parties after receiving full consideration, the complainant sought refund of the money paid by him besides interest and compensation. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties-respondents denying any deficiency on their part and tried to explain that they have offered holidays at some other resorts as than Jim Corbett Resort which was not ready for occupation. The District Forum going by the unrebutted pleas of the petitioner-complainant and the material produced by the petitioner, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties-respondents to refund the deposited amount of Rs.1,23,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of payment till realization besides a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within one month, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree into execution. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties-respondents filed appeal before the State Commission and succeeded simply on the plea that the complaint so filed before the District Forum itself was time barred having been filed after a delay of several years from the date of taking the time share holiday, overlooking the correspondence which was exchanged between the parties during the period from 1997 to 2007 and in particular in 2007 itself. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants are in appeal before us.
-
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, which can be said to have been duly established on record, there is no escape from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial