AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24.6.1999 passed in Case No. 167/1998 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the "District Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service that despite of purchase of Holiday Tourist Resorts on payment of Rs. 38,000/- and the balance of Rs. 1,52,000/- was to be deposited in 12 monthly instalments in which a special remission of Rs. 30,000/- was given to the respondent. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 1,22,000/- was paid by the respondent to the appellant, but, the accommodation in Holiday Resorts was not provided to the respondent by the appellant every year for a week at the different tourist places, hence the District Forum ordered to return the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental pain and sufferance.
AFTER hearing learned Counsels for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to deal with the question on merits in view of the decision of the National Commission in Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirti P. Doshi & Ors., I (1997) CPJ 26 (NC)=1998 CCJ 33, wherein the National Commission for the reasons recorded in First Appeal No. 499 of 1993 and 645 of 1993 observed that the transaction between the parties is one purchase of a time share in immovable property which is not a consumer dispute. Besides, compensation can be awarded to a consumer only in respect of loss or injury found to have been suffered by him due to negligence of the opposite party. This Commission in Appeal No. 129/2002, Kalpana Shrivastava v. Dalmiya Resorts & Anr., decided on 23.1.2002, following the decision of National Commission in Punjab Tourism Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (supra), held that the transaction of the purchase of time share in immovable property does not relate to a consumer dispute.
In view of the above, the complaint related to a transaction of purchase of time share in immovable property, therefore, was not maintainable. In the circumstance, the respondent if so advised, may institute the civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction or may take appropriate proceedings as may be available in accordance with law. If the respondent so chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and in such a case he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit.
IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with record of the case. Appeal allowed.