JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, PRESIDENT:---The complainants have preferred the claim for Rs. 14,04,549/- against the opposite parties for their inability to provide resort accommodation at Singapur during the last part of 1995, but instead they arranged the accommodation at Malaysia between 16-12-95 to 23-12-95. The complainants had informed quite in advance about their desire to travel to Singapur and that they had planned the trip accordingly. Surprisingly, the opposite parties failed to provide the accommodation as indicated above. 2. The facts are that the complainant applied for membership for the Royal Goan Beach Club for availing on the holiday resort facility. It is stated that the opposite parties had arranged presentation ceremony on 18-9-94 and at the ceremony, the complainants indicated that their son was studying in Singapur and that they wanted to travel to that place. By virtue of this membership, the complainants were given a rosy picture that they would heavily save on hotel charges and that they could even exchange their accommodation and gain as high as Rs. 5,50,000/- per week. The opposite parties further represented that there was 98% satisfaction of demand for the holiday resort. Accordingly, the complainants paid Rs. 17,800/- and Rs. 1,10,000/- for the membership respectively on 18-9-94 and 5-10-94. The payment was made to Prestige Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. This amount was raised by borrowing the same from Syndicate Bank at an interest of 19.25% p.a. This investment was to obtain holiday resort accommodation. As per the agreement, this was a sort of a right to the complainants to have share in the immovable property on ownership basis. It was in the nature of Time share in the immovable property. The said rights could be transferred. 3. It is also contended that if the entire accommodation is not reserved, the complainants were entitled to Bonus Week Holiday Entitlement. The opposite parties were affiliated to Hutchinson Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party No. 5) which had resort accommodation throughout the world. The Opposite party No. 1 2 also contended that they have connection with O.P. No 4 Resort Condominiums International (R.C.I.) which have their office at Bangalore. The complainants informed O.P. No. 1 and 2 to make arrangements for their visit to Singapur in the year 1995 and paid exchange fee of Rs. 3,200/-, but there was no response from the opposite party. The complainants informed O.P. No. 1 and 2 to make arrangements for their visit to Singapur in the year 1995 and paid exchange fee of Rs. 3,200/-, but there was no response from the opposite party. There appeared a news item in The Mumbai Age newspaper that these schemes were bogus and that is why the complainants felt apprehensive. They informed the opposite parties, but they were given to understand that their appointment was fixed on 16-10-95 in regard to the visit to Singapur, but the same was also cancelled. The complainants have alleged that in not providing the accommodation at Singapur, in spite of advance notice, there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The R.C.I. membership was delayed by about 20 weeks and hence, the compensation under various heads amounts to Rs. 14,04,549/-. 4. Now, this has been resisted by the opposite parties, mainly on two grounds. One is that this is not a consumer dispute and secondly, the accommodation is made available as and how vacancies are available. The visit to Singapur could not be accomplished, because no accommodation was available in Singapur and that the alternative accommodation at Malaysia was offered to the complainants, but they did not avail of the same. The complainants could not be assured of the accommodation at the places of their demand. Singapur is always in heavy demand and therefore, the accommodation could not be readily provided, instead the alternative accommodation in Malaysia was offered to the complainants. We feel that the other pleadings set out in the written statement are not very material. We find that such disputes cannot be raised before the Consumer Forum. The National Commission in the case of (Dalmia Resorts International v. Dr. Ranjana Gupta and others)1, reported in 1997(I) C.P.J. 63 has observed that the relief under the Consumer Protection Act in such matters is clearly misconceived, because the transaction between the parties is one of the purchase of time share in immovable property and that dispute arising between the parties, cannot be a consumer dispute and that the same must be agitated in the Civil Court. 5. We may briefly observe that new concept is formulated in such schemes and that there is purchase of time share in the Holiday Resorts. 5. We may briefly observe that new concept is formulated in such schemes and that there is purchase of time share in the Holiday Resorts. The customer gets the rights to occupy the resorts per week or for a stipulated period in a year and also exchange the same with the outsiders. This according to us, is not a consumer dispute which we can adjudicate upon. The ratio laid down by the National Commission in the above case, clinches the matter. We, therefore, pass the following order :--- O R D E R "Complaint is dismissed, with, however, no order as to cost." Complaint dismissed. *****