1)       Complainant Kartik Anand Ramnath has filed the present complaint under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Short facts leading to the filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under :- 

2)      Complainant Kartik Anand Ramnath  claims to be resident of  Rajendranagar, New Delhi. The O.P. namely Sahara Prime City Ltd. is engaged in banking sector as well as the work of construction  and its Zonal office is at Nagpur. In the year 2003 O.P./Company had floated a lucky draw scheme titled as ‘Sahara Swarn Yojana’ by inviting deposits from public at large and the winner of the bumper lucky draw was  to be allotted bungalow worth to Rs.25,00,000/-. As per the scheme the lucky winner was to pay monthly instalment of Rs.5208/- for the period of 480 months i.e for 40 years. Accordingly the complainant has deposited the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the said scheme on 31/12/2003. On 25/09/2005 during quarterly draw of lots complainant was declared a winner of bumper lucky draw of Rs.25,00,000/- and he was also informed by letter dated 03/03/2006.   Complainant then opted for flat in Nagpur and he was allotted flat No.B-6/403 and the cost of the flat was Rs.29,59,000 out of which complainant paid amount of Rs.2,95,000/-.  Complainant has alleged that thereafter the respondent/company changed the allotment of       B-6/403 and confirmed the allotment of unit No.B-5/606 and asked the complainant to pay Rs.29,59,000/- within 21 months. Complainant requested the respondent/company for adjustment of lucky draw cupan with the price but there was no response, hence complainant issued legal notice to the respondent/Sahara Prime City. Complainant has contended that he had already paid huge sum of money and so there was no question of cancellation of the allotment. Complainant has further contended that though he had paid the amount of Rs Rs.2,95,000/-, the O.P. did not complete the construction and did not handover the flat booked/allotted to him. Complainant has subsequently also taken a plea that in case the flat allotted to him bearing No.B-6/403 is not completed and possession is not handed over the complainant may be granted refund of the amount paid by him from time to time. Complainant has contended that since the O.P. had failed to handover the possession of flat and failed to complete the construction, the O.P. had indulged in deficiency in service and so the present complaint is filed by the complainant with a prayer that the O.P. allot the unit No.B-6/403 in Sahra City, Wardha Road, Nagpur and to adjust the lucky draw coupon of Rs.25,00,000/- in the payment of unit No.B-6/403 forthwith and to accept the payment as per initial schedule and also award the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of complainant.

3)      O.P. has appeared and resisted the complaint by filing the written version on record. At the outset the O.P. has contended that the complainant was not a Consumer and so the complaint was not tenable. The O.P. has denied that it was engaged in banking sector. O.P. has admitted that on 25/06/2005  that in quarterly draw of lots the complainant was declared as winner of Bumper lucky draw of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, the O.P. has denied that the flat bearing No.B-6/403 was allotted to the complainant at Nagpur. O.P. has admitted that the cost of flat allotted to the complainant was Rs.29,59,000/- and complainant had paid booking amount of Rs.2,59,000/-. O.P. has contended that the complainant was instructed to send the necessary documents but the same was not sent. Complainant himself does not perform his part of compliance. O.P. has contended that the complainant had not perform his part of the contract. O.P. has further contended that the complaint was not tenable in law in view of the condition No.20 of the terms of agreement relating to Arbitration. Complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected with cost.

4)      We have heard the learned advocate Mr.Motwani for complainant as well as advocate Mr.Renuka Nalamwar for O.P. The learned advocate for complainant has also drawn our attention to the documents on record. During the course of argument at is submitted by the learned advocate for complainant that though the complainant had paid sum of Rs.2,95,000/- and had also prayed for vacant  possession of the flat allotted to him, but in case the construction is not completed then the complainant is ready to waive his right and is ready to accept refund of the amount paid to the O.P. We have also heard advocate Mrs.Renuka Nalamwar for O.P. and she has submitted that the O.P. namely Sahara Prime City has been restrained from transferring any flat or property by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to ongoing litigation. The learned advocate for O.P. has submitted that the O.P. is ready to refund the amount paid by the complainant. From the pleadings and the documents placed on record it is clear that the complainant was waiting for possession of the flat bearing No.B-6/403 but the same was neither constructed nor the possession was delivered.  During the course of final hearing the complainant has also filed a pursis in writing stating that in case the prayer claimed in the complaint can not be accepted and possession can not be delivered then the complainant is ready to accept the refund of amount paid by him to the O.Ps. In view of the same we are of the view that though the O.P. has committed deficiency in service, it would be proper if the amount paid by the complainant is refunded to him alongwith suitable interest and so we pass the following order.    

//ORDER//

i.        Consumer Complaint is hereby partly allowed.

ii.       It is hereby declared that the O.P. has committed deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

iii)   O.P. is hereby directed to pay to the complainant Rs.2,95,000/-  along with  interest  at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit  of amount  till  the date  of  realization of the same.

iii.      O.P. is  hereby also  directed to  pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-  towards  physical and mental  harassment caused to the  complainant.

iv.      The O.P.is hereby also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.  

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.