Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/15/2019

Harish Chan Tayagi s/o G.L.Tayagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Sharma

06 Jan 2021

ORDER

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

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 15/2019

 

Harish Chander Tyagi s/o G.L.Tyagi r/o 4/130, SFS Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Sahara Prime City Ltd. Head office Sahara India Centre 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow U.P. Through Managing Director etc. & ors.

 

Date of Order 6.1.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Sharma-Member(Judicial)

Mr.Ramphool Gurjar -Member

 

Mr. Dinesh Sharma counsel for the complainant through V.C.

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

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. MAHAVEER PRASAD SHARMA MEMBER (JUDICIAL):

 

This complaint has been filed on 23.1.2019 with the contention that he booked a flat with the non-applicants. Allotment letter was issued on 3.6.2009 and within 38 months the possession of the property was to be handed over to the complainant but inspite of the payment of Rs.22,77,035/- the possession of the property has not been handed over to the complainant.

 

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 through V.C. and perused the record of the case.

 

It is not in dispute that booking was made by the complainant with non-applicants. Allotment letter is dated

3

 

3.6.2009 and within 38 months the possession of the unit was to be handed over to the complainant which was not done till today. The complainant has paid total sum of Rs.22,77,035/- with the non-applicant.

 

The complainant has relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Complaint No. 02/2017 Dr.Girish Agarwal Vs. Sahara City Homes where on the facts of the case relief is allowed.

 

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 pointed out that in case of default the non-applicant is charging 15% interest.

4

 

Hence, the same interest be allowed to him.

 

On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-applicants has referred the judgments passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 1676/2019 (Sahara Prime City Ltd. Vs. Usha Shrivastava), First Appeal No. 530/2019 (Sahara Prime City Ltd. Vs. Beena Mathur) and judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3182/2019 (Kolkata West International City Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra).

 

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.22,77,035/- alongwith 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

 

5

 

paid to the complainant within one month otherwise it will carry 9% interest from the date of the order.

 

(R.P.Gurjar) (M.P.Sharma)

Member Member (Judicial)

nm