JUDGMENT - Per Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---This is a complaint alleging the deficiency in service of the opposite party i.e. Government of Punjab Undertaking. It is necessary to State the few facts to understand the consumer dispute in this complaint. The complainant is a resident of Bombay and the opposite party is a Government of Punjab Undertaking namely Punjab Tourism Development Corn. Ltd., at Chandigarh. The opposite party had their office at World Trade Centre, Cuff Parade, Colaba, Bombay through it distributed the membership forms and collected the contributions from public. The complainant availed the membership on payment of Rs. 4,750/- on the basis of prospectus issued by the opposite party. The prospectus issued by the opposite party held out rosy picture among other facilities provided to its members in their 10 holiday homes, at Kathmandu, Goa, Srinagar, Simla, Kulu, Mussoorie, Udaipur, Mecleod Ganj (Dharamsala), Jaipur, and Nainital. The printed literature issued by the opposite party under the heading "Holiday Home Club Prospectus" gives out the Concept, Location and more about holiday home club alongwith the method of becoming membership. Under the "immediate benefit" to the member, there is promise of 7 days holiday in existing and future complex of the opposite party a room of equivalent status in lieu of 7 days holiday at the proposed holiday home. The members are also promised 25% discount on room tariff in all existing and future complex and 10% discount on food etc. There are certain highlights under the scheme of assured accommodation assistance for booked home reservation, sufficient kitchen etc. In the printed literature of the opposite party, the address of the Bombay is shown as "World Trade Centre, Cuff Parade, Bombay". The complainant alleged that he believed in the representation made by the opposite party mentioned above and availed its membership by making necessary payment for himself, his wife and his daughter. The membership of each of them is listed at Para 5 of the complaint. The complainant alleged that among other facilities, the opposite party had promised to provide 25 suites adm. 350 sq.ft. in each holiday home. It is described in detail in prospectus which is on record at "C.1". 2. In his complaint, the complainant alleged by paying requisite consideration to the opposite party, he availed the promised services from the opposite party mentioned in prospectus. 350 sq.ft. in each holiday home. It is described in detail in prospectus which is on record at "C.1". 2. In his complaint, the complainant alleged by paying requisite consideration to the opposite party, he availed the promised services from the opposite party mentioned in prospectus. According to the complainant, he had visited the office of the opposite party at Chandigarh and personally stayed in some of the complexes at Nangal and Pathankot where he was charged Rs. 50/- towards service charges. The complainant further alleged that having full satisfaction about the facilities there, he again obtained two more membership bearing Code No. 10401735 and 10401736 J and registered one each in the name of his minor daughter and wife which was subsequently transferred in his name. The complainant further alleged that as the opposite party promised attractive concession to the non-resident Indians he also enrolled such membership which is also subsequently transferred to his name. However, according to complainant in the year 1990 when he visited the two holiday homes set up by the opposite party, the services and facilities provided were found deficient in respect of quality, grade, standard and nature of performance. The complainant therefore, on 26-4-1990 complained to the Managing Director of opposite party about the deficiencies. Copies of those letters are annexed at "C-A" and "C-9" with complaint. The complainant therefore, alleged that the opposite party falsely represented about the services which were found to be not correct, and therefore, the opposite party is guilty by indulging in unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36-A of the Monopolistic Restrictive Trade Practice Act, 1969 read with section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant further alleged that as per promise the opposite party have not completed the construction of 8 holiday complexes and have not formed the local advisory boards and apex board and also have not constructed their holiday homes at Goa. The complainant contended that the promise held out by the opposite party "member is the master and his investment is in real estate" found to be false. The complainant therefore filed this complaint, claiming various reliefs for purposes of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,97,000/- as described in para-18 of the complaint. The opposite party filed its written statement, opposing the complainant's claim. The complainant therefore filed this complaint, claiming various reliefs for purposes of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,97,000/- as described in para-18 of the complaint. The opposite party filed its written statement, opposing the complainant's claim. However, in the written statement, the opposite party has admitted all the facts described in para-18 of the complaint, except the liability to make payment of the compensation. According to opposite party the cooking facility was not allowed in their Mussoorie complex by the Dist. Administration and that the member used the common kitchen facility. The opposite party further denied that they indulged in unfair trade practice, and as a result of which the complainant suffered a loss. Except these two allegations of unfair trade practice and the loss suffered by the complainant, the opposite party admitted that they have not completed the rest of 8 holiday resorts and non-formation of advisory boards. The opposite party also raised the technical objection that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are not applicable to this consumer dispute. 3. We have heard the complainant in person and the opposite party by M/s. Rajgopal, Advocate. 4. The first point contended by Ms. Rajgopal, Advocate is that this commission has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint as the office of the opposite party is situated at Chandigarh, outside the jurisdiction of this commission and secondly that the complainant had filed similar complaint in District Forum, Simlary in July, 1991. In our view, there is no substance in any of the objections since in their literature under the heading "Punjab Tourism Holiday Home Club" at "C-2" there is mention of the office having situated at World Trade Centre. Cuff Parade, Colaba, Bombay with phone number. It is therefore, clear that the opposite party at the time of filing of this complaint were carrying on business at Bombay within the meaning of section 11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore this commission has jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Similarly, the complainant has stated that although he had filed complaint at Dist. Forum, Simla in July, 91 against the opposite party. He has stated in para-16 of his complaint that he has undertaken to withdraw that complaint filed at Dist. Forum, Simla. Complaint filed before this commission on 1-1-1992 is for the value of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and therefore, this commission has jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Forum, Simla in July, 91 against the opposite party. He has stated in para-16 of his complaint that he has undertaken to withdraw that complaint filed at Dist. Forum, Simla. Complaint filed before this commission on 1-1-1992 is for the value of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and therefore, this commission has jurisdiction to decide this complaint. We are not aware of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the complaint filed at Dist. Forum Simla and the allegations made therein in absence of copy of that complaint before us. In any case, we are of that view that the present complaint is maintainable. 5. The complainant is proved to be a consumer of the services offered by the opposite party on payment of consideration and by virtue of admission in written version. The opposite party has admitted that they have not completed their complexes except 4 holiday complexes as yet and also admitted that they have not constituted the local advisory boards for the complexes. Apart from the aforesaid admitted deficiencies we find from the prospectus at annexure C-1 collectively on record that the laudable claim has been made by the opposite party that it is a State Government Undertaking with authorised share capital of Rs. 8 crores having Managing Director, Senior IAS Officers and being managed by Highly Professionalised Board of Directors with Senior Officers of the Government having rich experience in tourism and allied matters under the heading "CONCEPT". The opposite party has stated the scheme proposed to provide certain rights, benefits and privileges to the lower middle class, middle-class and higher middle class. However, there is a promise to set up proposed clubs within a maximum period of 2 years from the date of closing of the offer. The member by one time investment can eliminate the ill-effects of inflation for all times to come and get handsome dividends from this investment. According to complainant, he was more attracted by this offer made by the opposite party which compelled him to become member of the opposite party. Now, the complainant has alleged in this complaint that he find himself disillusioned in as much as, promised 8 complexes are not completed within the period of two years and no facilities are made available to its members even after the lapse of considerable time. Now, the complainant has alleged in this complaint that he find himself disillusioned in as much as, promised 8 complexes are not completed within the period of two years and no facilities are made available to its members even after the lapse of considerable time. We find that the opposite party itself has admitted in its written statement that except 4, rest of the complexes are not complete for some or the other reasons. There may be difficulties in the completion of those complexes, yet in our view, the written representation made by the opposite party is found to be false not in the nature of completion of other complexes but in not forming advisory boards and not providing the promised services in the nature of size of the rooms. We therefore find that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the opposite party has been deficient in its promised services to the complainant and his wife and daughter and other membership code which he has purchased. Thus, the complainant has claimed the compensation on the basis of his proved allegations. The complainant has claimed Rs. 40,000/- for not providing kitchen facility for the last 4 years and Rs. 1,12,000/- for not providing 4 beds in a suite and due to inferior quality, standard and grade of accommodation in respect of promised three and four star category suite of 350 sq.ft. The complainant also claimed Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of not setting up holiday homes as promised at Goa. The complainant also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 500/- as cost of complaint. Thus, the complainant claimed Rs. 4,97,000/- towards compensation. We are unable to grant the quantum of compensation claimed by the complainant in para-18 of his complaint as no material has been placed by the complainant to substantiate his claim. However, since the complainant has proved his allegations that the promised services of the opposite party are deficient in respect of particular size of suite and non-availability of bed rooms which he availed. We find that the complainant had suffered a loss for non availability of the promised services of the opposite party and therefore he is entitled to claim the compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. The rest of the claim of the complainant is therefore rejected. We find that the complainant had suffered a loss for non availability of the promised services of the opposite party and therefore he is entitled to claim the compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. The rest of the claim of the complainant is therefore rejected. Hence we pass the following order : ORDER The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards cost of this complaint. The aforesaid amounts be paid to the complainant within 30 days by the opposite party failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. Order accordingly. *****