Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/151/2017

Smt. Prem Devi W/o. Late Shri Kapoor Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited Through Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Lokesh Sharma

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 151 /2017

 

Smt.Prem Devi w/o late Sh.Kapoor Singh r/o Ward No.21, Bhagina Road, Near Gautam Public School, Water Works Pilani, Jhunjhunu.

Vs.

Sahara Prime City Ltd., through regional Manager Opp.Radha Swami Satsang Vyas, Bilwa, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 31.1.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr.Lokesh Sharma counsel for the complainant

Mr.M.P. Khandelwal counsel for the non-applicants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This complaint has been filed on 30.11 .2017 with the contention that husband of the complainant Kapoor Singh has submitted an application on 15.6.2005 for allotment of the unit. He died on 6.8.2005 and thereafter allotment was transferred in the name of present complainant. She paid Rs. 23,87,145/- but possession of the property has not been handed over to him. Hence, seeks refund of the money alongwith interest and compensation.

 

Per contra the contention of the non-applicants is that due to stay of the apex court possession of the property could not be handed over to the complainant and non-applicants are not deficient.

 

Both the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

It is not in dispute that allotment was transferred in the name of the complainant on 7.5.2013 and within 38 months the possession of the unit was to be handed over to the complainant which was not done till today. As per Anx. 53 she paid Rs.23,87,145/-.

 

3

 

The only contention of the non-applicants is that due to stay of the apex court dated 21.11.2013 the possession could not be handed over to the complainant which is still continue today. Be that may be the case the complainant could not be forced to wait for possession of the property for indefinite time and further more this is not the case of the non-applicant that project is complete or he is ready to give possession but due to the stay possession could not be handed over to the complainant.

 

The counsel for the complainant has rightly pointed out that in case of default the non-applicant is charging 15% interest. Hence, the same interest be allowed to him.

 

In view of the above that inspite of promise the possession of the unit has not been handed over to the complainant, the non-applicants are deficient and complainant could not forced to wait for indefinite period.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 23,87,145/- alongwith 15%

4

 

interest from the date of each deposit. The complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of proceedings which should be paid to the complainant within one month otherwise it will carry 9% interest from the date of the order.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm