Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/15/2013

Maduvegadde Omprakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman and Managing Director ,Sahara Prime City Ltd. & 2others - Opp.Party(s)

G.Krishnamoorthy

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                                                                            Date of filing        : 07.01.2013

                                                                                            Date of disposal  : 15.11.2022

 

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE      Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                          PRESIDENT

                     Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL                             MEMBER

 

C.C. No.15/2013

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

Maduvegadde Omprakash,

No.86, 15^th Main, 17^th Cross,

Sree Nanjundeswari Layout,

J.P. Nagar, 5^th Phase,

Bangalore – 560 078.                                                                        .. Complainant. 

-Versus-

 

1. The Chairman & Managing Director,

Sahara Prime City Limited,

Sahara India Centre,

No.2, Kapoorthala Complex,

Lucknow,

Uttar Pradesh – 226 024.       

 

2. The Zonal Manager,

Sahara Prime City Limited,

Nos.13 to 15, Shakthi Nagar,

Outer Ring Road,

Banaswadi,

Bangalore – 560 043.

                                                               

3. The Branch Manager,

Sahara India: Sahara Prime City Ltd.,

No.16, Rameswaram Road, (2^nd Floor),

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 007.                                                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant     : M/s. G.M. Shankar

Opposite parties 1 to 3              : Exparte

 

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 05.07.2022  and on hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the material records submitted by the complainant and this Commission made the following in the open Court:-

ORDER

Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL, MEMBER

 

The present complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to pay the delay compensation of Rs.74,02,680/-, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards disregard and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony and to allot the notified category (Bangalow) dwelling unit to the complainant at the same cost, to obtain the tentative period of project commencement & handing over, to make a code of conduct in real estate Industry by punishing & instructing the opposite parties not to represent falsely in the Public Media like the manner of this complaint to amaze huge funds from the innocent consumers and further, let the consumers in throttle & dishonor consumer rights.

1.         Brief facts necessitating the filing of complaint:

The complainant submits the 1^st opposite party released massive advertisements in ‘The Hindu’ dt. 29.10.2003 & electronic media of the country for the launching of “Sahara City Homes” a township Project proposed in 217 cities for the year 2004 & 2005.  The opposite parties also declared that “in the first phase people shall start living in Sahara City Homes from 2007”.  The complainant by believing the attractive advertisement, booked his home with the opposite party in the category “Unit Type – 071 (Independent Bunglow)”.   As per the booking offer brochure, the total cost of the bunglow is Rs.111 lacs and the complainant paid the 5% booking amount of Rs.5,55,200/- in the name of his introducer  Mr. S. Ganapathy and obtained a receipt viz No.38551790902 dt.30.10.2004 and in subsequent instalments amounting to Rs.7,40,268/-.  Though the complainant booked for Bangalore Project, the Booking advance & instalments were paid to the 3^rd opposite party, Chennai, T. Nagar Branch.   The complainant states that there was no bi-par tee agreement entertained by the opposite parties in this transaction.  The 2^nd opposite party issued a letter dated: 12.06.2012 confirming the booking in the complainant’s name and their party ledger copy dt.13.06.2012 and also the payment.  The 1^st opposite party had promised to handover the homes within 3 years from 2004 but till date, the project has not been commenced.   The complainant enquired several times with the opposite parties with regard to the development and handing over of the home.  But the 2^nd opposite party  used to give only an evasive reply that the project would commence in another 3 to 6 months.    The opposite party agreed to refund the advance amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.  But the complainant rejected to accept the same because the opposite parties have rotated such booking funds of the consumers like a financer and earned 20 times of asset value with a span of 6 years.  The complainant further states that the opposite parties delayed the project for about 9 years.   The act of opposite parties caused great mental agony and hardship to the complainant and hence, this complaint is filed before this Commission.

2.         Even after receipt of notice the opposite parties 1 to 3 has not appeared before this Commission and hence, the opposite parties 1 to 3 were set exparte.    Though the opposite parties 1 to 3 were set exparte, this Commission wants to dispose the case on merits based on available records.

3.         The complainant filed his proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 on their side. 

4.         The points for consideration before this Commission is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

5.         Point No.1:-

The complainant has made his oral arguments and filed his written argument.  The contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party released massive advertisements in ‘The Hindu’ dt. 29.10.2003 & electronic media of the country for the launching of “Sahara City Homes” a township Project proposed in 217 cities for the year 2004 & 2005.  Ex.A1 is the copy of advertisement made in “The New Indian Express”.  The opposite parties also declared that “in the first phase people shall start living in Sahara City Homes from 2007”.  The complainant on believing the attractive advertisement, booked his home with the opposite party in the category “Unit Type – 071 (Independent Bunglow)”.   As per the booking offer brochure, the total cost of the bunglow is Rs.111 lacs and the complainant paid the 5% booking amount of Rs.5,55,200/- in the name of his introducer  Mr. S. Ganapathy and obtained a receipt viz No.38551790902 dt.30.10.2004 and in subsequent instalments amounting to Rs.7,40,268/-.   The copy of party ledger is filed as per Ex.A4.   In Ex.A4, it is seen that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.7,40,268/- in total. The complainant contended that there was no bi-par tee agreement entertained by the opposite parties in this transaction.  The contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party issued a letter dated: 12.06.2012 confirming the booking in the complainant’s name and their party ledger copy dt.13.06.2012 and also the payment.   The complainant further contended that the 1^st opposite party had promised to handover the homes within 3 years from 2004 but till date, the project has not been commenced.   The complainant enquired several times with the opposite parties with regard to the development and handing over of the home but the 2^nd opposite party  used to give only an evasive reply that the project would commence in another 3 to 6 months.    The complainant further contended that the opposite party agreed to refund the advance amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.  But the complainant rejected to accept the same because the opposite parties have rotated such booking funds of the consumers like a financer and earned 20 times of asset value with a span of 6 years.  The complainant further states that the opposite parties delayed the project for about 9 years and hence, this complaint is filed.

6.         The contention of the complainant is that till the date of filing of the complaint, the project proposed at Bangalore had not yet commenced thereby, it is clear that there was  delay in commencement of project and they have not entered into any agreement with the complainant who has paid the advance amount and the part payment lured by attractive advertisements of the opposite parties with the hope of dreaming of the house for their own in future which was not at all materialized and they are not in a position to go for an alternative one at this juncture of time in view of the escalated costs and higher price for such house from other firms and only hope with the opposite parties promise and assurance in providing the house they have been made to wait for so many years even though initially the opposite parties offered to complete the project within 3 years and hand over the same but till date the project has not been commenced for which, certainly the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the delay in the commencement of the project. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the compensation for delay in project. In fact, the complainant claim 10 times of the payments made since the opposite parties have purchased the lands for the project from the amount collected from the allottees which becomes 10 times more than the purchased price value and thereby the complainant claimed 10 times of the advance money paid as delay compensation and as far as the other prayers are the that the complainant prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- towards disregard and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages & mental agony  and also to allot the notified category of dwelling unit to the consumer at the same cost mentioned at the time of booking and to obtain the tentative period of project commencement and handing over and to made code of conduct in real estate industry by punishing and instructing the opposite party not to represent falsely in public media like the manner of the complaint to amaze huge funds from the innocent consumers and these prayers are concerned when the project itself is not commenced and there is no bilateral agreement between the parties except for the prayer for delay compensation, disregard and mental agony compensations and other prayers we are of the view that they are pre-mature in nature and this Commission cannot pass such directions at this stage without having specific materials for the same.  However, we hold that there is deficiency and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties in not commencing the project for providing house / homes as assured / promised within the prescribed period and caused delay and this point is answered accordingly.

7.         Point No.2:-

In view of the finding in point No.1, the complainant is entitled for the delayed compensation for the project not commenced and as for other reliefs are concerned that the complaint is to be dismissed as pre-mature and in those circumstances while considering the delay compensation the complainant claimed 10 times of the amount paid by them we feel that they are not in accordance with the facts and materials of the case even though the complainant allege that the opposite parties have become enriched by using the allottees / consumers money for purchase of the land and since the value of those lands are raised to manifold and higher in value and thereby they claimed 10 times of payment paid by them as delayed compensation.   The complainant paid the 5% booking amount of Rs.5,55,200/- in the name of his introducer  Mr. S. Ganapathy and obtained a receipt viz No.38551790902 dt.30.10.2004 and in subsequent instalments amounting to Rs.7,40,268/- which is evident from Ex.A3 & Ex.A4.      The complainant hope that he can own a house and booked the house /flat having unit of their choice of area booked and uncertain when the project itself would be launched and the consumers are not interested in getting the refund of the money paid by them except to insist for the commencement of the project to get the house booked by them without having any escalation of costs.  In the instant case, it is proved beyond doubt that the opposite parties 1 & 2 made false representation through brochures, letters and no project work is commenced and they have made false representation and collected the money by taking signature on the so called terms and conditions and induced the innocent consumers like the complainant which amount to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. 

8.         The complainants have sought further reliefs such as refund of extra charges for car parking, refund of service tax paid, rental expenses etc. But the complaints are bereft of any particulars as to whether these charges formed part of the total consideration and as to what was the charges collected for allotment of car parking and other charges as stated supra. Equally, there is no proof let in by the complainants to show that the opposite parties had collected all these amounts in addition to the agreed total consideration and when these amounts were paid by them to the opposite parties. As we have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainants should be compensated in terms of money.  It is evident as per the Ex.A3, copy of receipt & Ex.A4, party ledger that the opposite parties have received Rs.7,40,268/- from the complainants.  Thus complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.  Further, the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him.  Cost of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the complainants.  Thus, we answer point No.2 in favour of the complainants.

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed as follows :-

1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally are liable to refund the sum of Rs.7,40,268/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs forty thousand and two hundred and sixty eight only) with 9% interest from the date of complaint (i.e.) 07.01.2013 to till date of realization to the complainant;
2. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) for the mental agony & hardship;
3. Cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses. 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:

Ex.A1	29.12.2004	Copy of advertisement in ‘The New Indian Express’
Ex.A2	30.10.2004	Copy of the recipts issued by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A3	12.06.2012	Copy of letter of the 2nd opposite party confirming the transfer
Ex.A4	13.06.2012	Copy of party ledger of the 2nd opposite party

 

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT