The court established that the nature of the dispute as a consumer dispute and the applicability of the jurisdiction clause in the agreement to Consumer Courts were the central legal points in the judgment.

Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President—The circumstances which impelled the complainants to file the complaint before the District Forum are that the opposite party through advertisement invited deposits from the general public for selling the ‘Times Shares’ for accommodation at different places against payment at different rates for leasing out its premises for 99 years as vacation ownerships. The complainants purchased one time share for 99 years at Mussoorie and booked their one stay in a year for last week of the year. Accordingly, they were entitled to avail facility for a week relating to the period 24th December to 31st December of every year till the expiry of period of 99 years, so stipulated in the agreement. The demand draft of Rs. 42,750 drawn in favour of opposite party No. 1 was sent by the complainants. After completion of the necessary requirements, the opposite parties issued a confirmation letter dated 17.7.1995 vide which acceptance of the application of the complainants and allotment rights/privileges in period No. 52 at the Highness Heights, Mussoorie was communicated. The opposite parties further issued Identification Code 07052 EOO 03002376S to the complainants. In terms of the allotment so made, the complainants visited Mussoorie in the month of December, 1995, but to their surprise, they found that there was no construction at all. On being informed, the opposite party offered substituted accommodation which was not up to the mark and they had to incur extra expenses of Rs. 5,000 during the period of their stay. The complainants had to face similar difficulty during the vacation in December, 1996 when they visited Mussoorie, with the result they had to spent Rs. 15,000 during the period of their stay. In December, 1997 the complainants and their nominees visited the site at Mussoorie and found that the construction work was at the initial stage and in this manner the opposite party while adopting the unfair trade practice collected huge amount not only from the complainants but also from the general public without providing any services in terms of allotment made. On account of the harassment and deficient services of the opposite party, the complainants have to incur loss of Rs. 50,000. The complainants vide their letter dated 14.7.1996 informed the opposite party No. 1 about the treatment given to them and failure on its part to fulfil its commitment to them but no heed was paid to the same. Thereafter, the complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar seeking refund of Rs. 42750 paid to the opposite parties along with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realisation. The complainants further claimed Rs. 70,000 on account of mental agony, Rs. 50,000 for harassment and Rs. 20,000 for extra expenses incurred during the period of their stay at Mussoorie and Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses from the opposite party.

2. The opposite party in the reply sent through post, admitted that the complainants were allotted time share in the Highness Heights resort at Mussoorie and in this manner they are acquired a Time Share in the immovable property. It was pleaded by it that the dispute raised by the complainants is not a consumer dispute and for that reason the complaint was liable to be dismissed being not maintainable before the District Forum.

3. The District Forum while noticing the stand of the parties and documents placed on record, came to the conclusion that the opposite party had failed to provide facilities in terms of the allotment made which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Accordingly, the opposite party was directed to refund Rs. 42,750 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the draft till the date of payment within one month from the date of this order. The complainants were further awarded Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses. It is against this order dated 12.11.2001 of the District Forum, the appellants have filed the present