BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 606 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 05.10.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 04.07.2011 |
Chaman Lal Garg s/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath, r/o #2011, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. …..Complainant V E R S U S [1] M/s Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7th Floor, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director, Mr. Subroto Roy. [2] Regional Office, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No. 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager, Mr.S.P. Tiwari. [3] Mr. Kuldeep Arora, Branch/ Sector Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No. 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ……Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Rajinder Singh, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Navjinder Singh Sidhu, Counsel for OPs. --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed the present complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. The Complainant booked a Two Bed Room Pent House with Study & Terrace with OPs by depositing a sum of Rs.1,11,100/- vide receipt dated 01.12.2004 under the Sahara City Homes Scheme at Chandigarh. The possession of the said Pent House was promised to be handed over to the Complainant by the end of 2007. Further, in accordance with the Scheme, the Complainant had deposited 24 monthly installments of Rs.9258/- from Feb. 2005 to Dec. 2006 with the OPs. Thus, the total amount deposited by the Complainant with the OPs comes to Rs.3,33,292/-. Since the OPs failed to start the construction work at the site, the Complainant stopped making further payments. He had been visiting the OPs to know as to when the work would start, but all in vain. Left with no other alternative, the Complainant sought the refund of the money deposited by him. When the OPs refused to make the refund, a legal notice dated 14.9.2010 was served upon the OPs, but the same also failed to fructify. Hence, this complaint. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 3. The OPs in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the delay caused in the Project - Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh was due to the reasons beyond the control of the OPs. The amount of Rs.3,33,292/- was only as advance towards the Flat at Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh which denotes that as and when the Project would be operational, the Complainant would be given preference in the allotment of the flat of desired category. The advance does not bind the OPs with any contractual liability in respect of the Flat until any allotment is made qua the same. It was denied that the OPs had ever refused to refund the booking advanced amount. Rather, the OPs were always ready to refund the advanced amount to the Complainant. It was asserted that the construction of project was subject to force majure clause which included delay in project due to any reasons beyond the control of the Company. The completion of a housing project depends upon various statutory compliances and the developers are at the mercy of the competent authorities which take their sweet time to issue the compliance certificates. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the OPs has agreed to refund Rs.3,33292/- along with interest. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that in a similar complaint No.422 of 2009 titled as Kusum Gupta Vs.Sahara India Pariwar, the District Forum-II has refunded the amount along with 9% interest besides Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation and therefore, he may also be awarded the same relief. We do not agree with the complainant because in our view, the OP has voluntarily agreed to refund the amount along with interest so it would be unreasonable to award excessive and exaggerated compensation as claimed by the complainant. 7. Without further going into the merits of the case, we are our considered opinion, since the OP No.1 has agreed to pay the amount of Rs.3,33,292/- after filing of the complaint, therefore, the complainant is held entitled to the reasonable compensation and litigation costs on account of avoidable litigation. 8. As a result of the foregoing findings, the OPs are directed to refund Rs.3,33,292/- to the complainant along with the interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of last installment till its realization. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 9. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Pronounced 04.07.2011 Sd/- [P.D. GOEL] President Sd/- [Rajinder Singh Gill] Member Sd/- [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] Member
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | |
