STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS (I) LTD. vs SATISH B. KHATAL PATIL

NONE present on behalf of the respondents although duly noticed.

THIS appeal is pending for admission for quite a long time. The same was moved before us for admission hearing on 9.12.2002 on behalf of the appellant, when we issued notice before admission to the respondents making it returnable on 29.4.2003. Notices were served and respondent No. 1 on behalf of the respondents remained present. Matter was adjourned to today. However, none is present on behalf of the respondents. For brevity''s sake appellants are referred to as O.Ps. and respondents as complainants. Appellants have challenged the order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the District Forum Thane, which is an ex-party holding the O.Ps. as deficient in rendering service to the complainant vis-a-vis enjoyment of the facilities of resorts for the scheme floated by the O.Ps.

Award in question is an ex parte one and although no satisfactory explanation offered by and on behalf of the O.Ps., as to why they did not respond to the process of the District Forum, there is a point in their favour in this matter, which would go to the root of the matter. The same is that the consumer dispute relates to enjoyment of certain facilities under the Time Share Agreement between the complainant and O.Ps. which has been annexed as Annexure to the appeal paper book from page No. 38 onwards.

COMPLAINANTS have alleged certain deficiency against the O.Ps. in respect of the said agreement. However in view of the judgment of the National Commission firstly in the case of Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Ranjana Gupta & Anr., inI (1997) CPJ 63 (NC)=Appeal No. 719/1993 dated 17.6.1996, and secondly in the case of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Kirti P. Doshi in Appeal Nos. 499 and 645/1993 dated 6.1.1997 reported in I (1997) CPJ 52 (NC)=1997 (1) CPR 77, wherein the National Commission has held that transaction of purchaser of Time Share in immovable property in Holiday Resort is not a consumer dispute and person participating in the suit would not fall under the category of consumer.

WE have carefully gone through the judgments of the National Commission, as also the Time Share Agreement in the appeal herein and there leaves no doubt that the facts and situation as obtained in the matters herein, are identical to those as obtained in the matters being the subject matters of the two judgments referred to herein above. That being so, appeal has to be allowed and its impugned order dated 2.9.2002 is set aside. ORDER Appeal is allowed and its impugned order dated 2.9.2002 is set aside. Complaint No. 206/2001 on the file of District Forum Pune stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. Appeal allowed.