M.USHA vs STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26th day of October, 1998 in O.P. No. 692/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the opposite party. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The complainant, it appears, paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of a cheque towards the purchase of time-share to the opposite party. The time-share promised to be purchased in favour of the complainant by the opposite party did not get fructified. Consequently, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and praying for certain reliefs.

THE opposite party filed a version contended in pith and substance that the purchase of time-share will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act, 1986"). THEre is no deficiency in service on their part. THE complaint filed as such is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that the purchase of time-share will not come within the purview of the Act, 1986 and consequently dismissed the complaint without costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. S.K. Srinivasan, K. Harish and S.G. Ramesh Kumar. On service of process, the respondent/opposite party also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. Rangarajan and Prabhakaran. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, neither learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant nor learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/opposite party were present. The respective parties were also called; absent. The fact that the said learned Counsel and parties were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal in their absence. We are, however, inclined to dispose of the appeal on perusal of the materials placed on record. We accordingly do so.

ON perusal of the materials placed on record, we are of the view that there are no merits in this appeal. Admittedly, the transaction is one for the purchase of a time-share by the complainant through the medium of the opposite party. The National Commission in the case of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirti P. Doshi & Ors., I (1997) CPJ 26 (NC), laid down the dictum that the purchase of a time-share will not come within the purview of the Act,1986. Such being the case, it goes without saying that the appeal filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed as of no merits. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.