Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

CC/17/11

SHRI. JAHID ALI HUSSAIN MUJAWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

ADV. ARVIND DUBEY

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/11
( Date of Filing : 17 Feb 2017 )
 
1. SHRI. JAHID ALI HUSSAIN MUJAWAR
R/O B-2/407, RAI TOWN, POST-MIDC, HINGNA ROAD, NAGPUR-440016
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED
OFFICE AT SAHARA INDIA BHAVAN, 2, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX,LUCKNOW-226024
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH
2. SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD.
OFFICE SAHARA CITY HOME, VILLAGE GAWASI MANAPUR, WARDHA ROAD, H.N.NO.7, NAGPUR, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
3. KETUBH CITY HOMES MAU PVT.LTD
COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED & REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, OFFICE AT SAHARA CITY HOME, VILLAGE GAWASI MANAPUR, WARDHA ROAD, H.N.NO.7, NAGPUR, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
NAGPUR
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.K. KAKADE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. A. Z. KHWAJA JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Advocate Mr.Dubey.
......for the Complainant
 
Advocate Mrs.Renuka Nalamwar
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 30 Nov 2021
Final Order / Judgement

Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member.

1)       Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for claiming vacant possession of flat and also for compensation and alternatively for refund of the amount of consideration. Short facts leading to the filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under :- 

2)      Complainant Jahid Ali Hussain Mujawar claims to be resident  of Rai Town, Hingna Road, Nagpur. Complainant has contended that he desired to purchase one flat at Nagpur and there was huge publicity by O.Ps. regarding their Sahara Housing Scheme. O.Ps. are the companies engaged in the business as builders and developers. O.Ps. have developed the housing scheme at Nagpur Wardha Road known as “Ketubh City Homes” and selling flats, tenements and penthouses. Complainant therefore approached the O.Ps. and  booked one residential unit of two bed rooms bearing unit No.B4/501 admeasuring  88.73 Sq.Mt. in the building known and styled as ‘CROWN’ on the 5th floor. Complainant has  contended that the total consideration of the  flat was fixed at Rs.17,66,283/- and complainant had paid the entire  amount of consideration by way of instalments. First instalment of Rs.88,317/- was paid on 01/03/2005 and later on the complainant has paid the remaining amount by way of instalments. After executing the agreement of sale the O.P.No.2 have promised that the possession of the flat will be handed over very soon. But only bare promises were made and no steps were taken for handing over the possession of the flat. Complainant on numerous occasions made enquiry  with the O.P. No.2 regarding possession of the property but every time O.P.No.2 stated that they had started the construction on the project site and would hand over the possession. However complainant came to know that O.Ps. did not complete the construction as per the promise made.  Complainant was therefore compelled to file the present complaint with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to complete the construction of the flat and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the flat. But during the pendency of the complaint the present complainant has waived his right to possession and has only claimed refund of amount of Rs.17,66,283/- alongwith penal interest @Rs.15% p.a. and so the present complaint.  

 

3.      The O.P.No.1 to 3 have appeared  and resisted the complaint  by filing their common written version.  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 come  within   purview   of  definition  of the term ‘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. 18 regarding Force Majeure  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 including the present project had come to a 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  on 17/07/2013 and 21/11/2013 directing that  the Sahara Group of Companies shall not part with any  moveable or immoveable properties until  further  orders  and these orders are still in force and the Sahara Group of companies have been restricted from  parting  with  or  handing  over  possession of moveable  or immovable  property  in the  projects.

4.      The O.Ps. have also taken  a specific plea  that there was Arbitration  Clause  in the contract  entered into  with the complainant and so the dispute can be resolved  only by the  Sole Arbitrator.  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 present complainant is not tenable in law and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5.      We have gone through the complaint of the complainant, evidence affidavit as well as written notes of arguments filed by the complainant. In the same way we have also gone through the written version, evidence affidavit and written notes of arguments filed by the O.Ps. We have heard Mr.Dubey, learned  advocate for the complainant and  Mrs. Renuka Nalamwar, learned advocate for the O.Ps.  It is submitted by Mr. Mr.Dubey, learned advocate  for  the complainant  that  the  complainant had booked unit No.B4/501 admeasuring  88.73 Sq.Mt. in the building known and styled as ‘CROWN’ on the 5th floor and the agreed cost of the unit was Rs.17,66,283/-.  Learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that he had paid the entire amount of the flat by taking loan from the bank and also  by  depositing  the instalments  in regular  and meticulous  manner but the  O.Ps. namely Sahara  Prime City Ltd.  had not at all  fulfilled   the promises by completing the construction work within the stipulated period. O.Ps. have also failed to not only complete the project  but also to hand over the possession  of the unit despite having executed registered agreement of unit.

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.  has  also  placed on  record copy  of the said orders  as well as other papers  to show  the on going  litigation  between the O.Ps. namely Sahara Prime City Ltd. and  SEBI and I 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.  However, it is submitted by Mr.Dubey, learned advocate for complainant that looking to the developments which have taken  place  and the fact that  the matter is pending  before the  Hon’ble Supreme Court  they are no longer  keen on getting  the possession  of the flat/unit purchased  by them but they are keen  regarding  refund  of entire  amount in the  backdrop  of the fact  that  the O.Ps. has not completed construction  as yet nor delivered  the possession  of the flat.  During the course of argument Mr. Dubey, learned   advocate  for complainant has submitted that  the O.Ps.  may be  directed  to refund  the amount which  was  paid  towards  consideration  and  similar orders have  come to be passed  earlier by the  Hon’ble  National Commission  on this aspect.

7)      We have heard Shri Dubey, learned advocate for the complainant and also gone through the copies and various documents which were placed  on record by  the complainant including copy of agreement to sale entered in to with the  O.Ps.. It is crystal clear that the present complainant had not only booked the unit with the O.Ps. on the basis of assurances given to him but  also parted with huge amount of Rs.17,66,283/-. It is further clear from the pleadings and documents placed on record that the O.Ps. namely Sahara Prime City Limited had not kept its promise and had not completed the construction at all and thereby had put the complainant to huge financial loss by accepting part of the consideration from him. We are also of this view that looking to the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the O.P. was not in a position to hand over the possession of the unit purchased by the complainant and so we feel that suitable directions can be given to O.Ps. regarding refund of consideration alongwith interest. We are also of the view that looking to the financial loss and delay in handing over possession no leniency can be shown as far as rate of interest and compensation is concerned and so we are inclined to the award interest @ 15% p.a. over the amount paid by the complainant. We are also feel that O.Ps. are liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant and Rs.15,000/- by way of cost of litigation. We therefore proceed to pass the following order.   

//ORDER//

i.        Consumer Complaint is hereby partly allowed.

ii.       O.P.Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.  Rs.17,66,283/-./- along with  interest  at the rate of 15% 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 jointly and severally to the complainants compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-  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. 15,000/- 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.

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DR. S.K. KAKADE]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. A. Z. KHWAJA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.