Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/110/2019

Daljeet Singh Chhabra s/o Gurubachan Singh Chabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.M.Mathur

01 Feb 2021

ORDER

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

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 110/2019

 

Shri Daljeet Singh Chhabra s/o Gurubachan Singh Chhabra, 29, Bhawanimandi, Jhalawar.

Vs.

Sahara Prime City Ltd., (Sahara City Homes) Head Office- Sahara India Centre, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through M.D. & ors.

 

Date of Order 1.2.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member (Judicial)

Mr. Ramphool Gurjar -Member

 

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the complainant through phone

Mr.Narendra Kumar Sharma counsel for the non-applicants through V.C.

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

The complainant has filed the complaint against the non-applicants with the facts that he is allottee of Flat No. B-7/903 in the Sahara City Homes Scheme at village Bilwa, Tonk Road, Jaipur.The complainant has paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.23,22,891/- till August 2013. According to the complainant the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alleged against the opponents is that despite depositing the entire consideration amount the flat has not been fully constructed and the necessary development works have not been done and as per the promise the possession of the flat has not been handed over till the filing of complaint. The complainant has sought the relief to refund the deposited amount of Rs.23,22,891/- with interest besides compensation for the physical, mental and economical loss alongwith the prosecution cost.

 

In the reply besides raising certain objections regarding lack of jurisdiction of this Commission in the parawise reply

3

 

the non-applicants have admitted the facts regarding allotment of the flat to the complainant and receiving the amount there for. The reason of delay in completion of the scheme has been shown to be non-availability of river sand (bajri) and stay by Hon'ble apex court in the Sahara SEBI matter. Further it is pleaded that SEBI is a necessary party. On this basis the non-applicants have denied the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

Both the sides have adduced its evidence both oral as well as documentary.

 

Heard the rival contention. We have perused the record.

 

In this matter it is an admitted position that complainant is the allottee of the flat no. B-7/903 in the Sahara City Homes Scheme of non-applicants and an amount of Rs.23,22,891/- has been received by the non-applicants. As such the relation of consumer and service provider inter se between the parties is not in dispute. As regards the alleged deficiency &/or unfair trade practice against the non-applicants the delay in completion of the scheme has also been admitted by the non-

4

 

applicants. In our view the reasons/justification as pleaded by non-applicants that the construction could not be completed due to non-availability of river sand (bajri) or due to stay of Hon'ble Apex court in Sahara SEBI case, cannot be accepted so as to relieve the non-applicants of their liability qua the complaint.

 

Here it is worthwhile to mention that time and again Hon'ble the Apex court as well as the National Commission have held that a consumer cannot be forced to wait for possession of the property for indefinite period. Moreover the plea of complainant regarding non-completion of construction of flat and not doing the necessary developments have not been controverted by the counter plea of completion of flat and doing the necessary development works. As such the factum of

deficiency in service and unfair trade practice stand proved against the non-applicants.

 

In our view of the above, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves acceptance hence, the same is allowed. In a similar matter another coordinate bench of this Commission has allowed interest @ 10% p.a. We too adhere

5

 

to this view. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and it is hereby ordered that the non-applicants are held liable jointly as well as severelly to pay to the complainant the total amount deposited i.e. Rs.23,22,891/- with 10% 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.

 

 

(R.P.Gurjar) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

nm