(Delivered on  07/01/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.       Complainant – Mr. Mahesh M. Mulchandani resident  of  Dhantoli, Nagpur  has moved   the present  Consumer Complaint  under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 2.      Short facts leading to the present  complaint  may be narrated  as under:-

          Complainant  Mr. Mahesh M. Mulchandani claims to be  resident at Dhantoli,  Nagpur and was doing  the business of running  a Daily Needs Shop at Dhantoli. The No. 2- Sahara Prime City Limited  claims to be  reputed  builders who were  providing  residential  flats  along with   all possible amenities. The O.P. namely  Sahara Prime  City Limited  had also given  advertisement  showing  various  amenities  and  comforts provided in the flat to be constructed  by them and so the complainant  was  attracted by lucrative offers made by the  O.P. Complainant- Mr. Mahesh Mulchandani therefore, entered into an agreement  with the O.P. for purchase  of one residential  unit No. B6/406, Block No. B6 on  fourth  floor admeasuring 88.73 Sq. Mtrs.  In the  residential  scheme  being  constructed  at Mouza Gavasi (Manapur).  Agreed cost of the residential  unit was Rs. 22,20,000/- and  same was payable  in 38  monthly installments as stipulated  in the  agreement. The complainant  has alleged   that  he has invested  his hard earned  money  in purchasing  proposed  residential  flat construct by the O.P. but despite the  payments made by the complainant, the O.P. failed  to  perform  their  part of contract  and did not  complete  the construction  work  of the building  and also did not  hand  over the possession  to the complainant despite  sending  letters to them.  The complainant  has already  paid an amount of Rs. 22,48,566/- . The complainant  has come to the conclusion  that  by not performing  the part of contract  and also not  constructing  the building  as well as not  hand over the possession of the  promise unit, the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 have indulged  in deficiency  in service and  same amounted to unfair  trade  practice. Complainant- Mahesh  Mulchandani  was therefore left with no other option but to file present  Complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 3.         The O.Ps. have  appeared  and resisted the complaint  by filing written version. The O.Ps. have also  filed their written notes of argument on record.  At the  outset  the O.Ps. have taken a plea that  the complainant had booked the present unit  with the sole intention  to earn profit  and so they  do not  fall   within   purview   of  definition  of the ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.Ps. have also taken a specific plea that  their  contract is also governed  by  Term No. 16 regarding Force Majure  which implies   the delay  due to  circumstances  beyond   the control  of the company.  The O.Ps. have  taken a plea  that the delay if  any had taken  place due to  on going  litigations between O.Ps. and  SEBI before the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court  and  so the  completion  of all  the projects had come to stand still. The O.Ps. have also taken a plea that  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  has  in Contempt  Petition 412/2012 passed  an  orders  directing that  the Sahara Group of Companies   shall not  part with any  moveable or immoveable properties unit until   further  orders  and same are still in force . 

4.         The O.Ps. have also taken  a specific plea  that there was Arbitration  Clause  in the contract  entered into  and so the dispute can be resolved  by the  Arbitrator  only.  It is also contended by the O.Ps.  that the O.Ps.  are also  bound by  changing  rules of  Town Planning Authority  and other  Local  Bodies.  The complaint filed by the complainants is not tenable in law and deserves to be dismissed with cost.

 5.         We have heard Mr. R.A. Haque , learned  advocate for the complainant and  Mrs. Renuka Nalamwar, learned advocate for the O.Ps.  It is argued  by learned advocate  for the complainant  that  the  complainant had deposited  entire  amount by way of installment in prompt and regular manner  but the O.Ps namely Sahara City Home Limited  had not  at all fulfill  the promises  and high hope given by them and neither   completed  the construction  of the building  nor handed  over the possession  of the flat as promised and  therefore  the complainant  has   under gone huge mental agony and harassment  for which  compensation  needs to be paid.

6.         On the other hand,  Mrs. Renuka Nalamwar, learned advocate appearing for the  O.Ps.  has  submitted that  the O.Ps. have been  restrained  from  parting with  the possession  until  further orders , as per orders passed in Contempt Petition Nos. 412/2012, dated 17/07/2013 and 21/11/2013.  Mrs.  Renuka Nalamwar, learned advocate for the O.Ps.  also  placed on  record the copy of the said orders  as well as other papers  to show  on going  litigation  between the O.Ps. and  SEBI and we have carefully  perused  the same. There  can be no dispute  regarding  the fact that  certain  orders  have come to be  passed by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court  relating  to handing  over the possession  of the unit  purchased by the  complainants.

7.         We have gone through these judgments on  which reliance is placed. After  going  through  various  cases which were  cited at bar and  judgment  delivered by the National Commission, we are of the clear view that  since the O.P. namely  Sahara Prime City  has miserably failed to construct  the building  as promised and to hand over the possession of the flat the complainant  who  was admittedly  “Consumer” was  entitled  for refund  of the entire  amount paid by way of consideration to O.P. We are also conscious  of the fact that  certain directions  have been  given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and so permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was necessary.

8.         We are also of the view that  looking to the passage of time  and  huge delay  in completing  the project or handing  over the possession  no leniency can be shown  so far as  rate of interest  and compensation  is concerned  and so we are inclined  to  award  interest on the amount  at the rate of 18%  p.a.  from the date of deposit  of amount by the  complainants till realization.  We are further of the view that the O.Ps. are also  liable to  pay compensation  in the sum of Rs.  5,00,000/- towards mental  and physical harassment  caused to the  complainants and litigation cost of  Rs. 10,000/-. We therefore, proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Consumer Complaint No.  CC/15/106  is hereby partly  allowed.

ii.          O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs. 22,48,566/- along with  interest  at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of deposit  of amount  till  the date  of  realization of the same by the complainants.

iii.         O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby also  directed to pay to the complainants  compensation  of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards  physical and mental  harassment caused to the  complainants.

iv.        The O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby also  directed to  pay  litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants.

 v.         The payment of the amount in compliance of the above order shall  be made in the span of three months  from the receipt  of the copy of the order by the O.Ps. subject to  permission  of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for making the said payment.

vi.        Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.