BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Smt. Manju Chawla w/o Sh. S.K. Chawla resident of Flat No.505, GH-52, Sector 20, Panchkula.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1.        Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7 Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow through its M.D.

2.        Regional Office, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Branch Sector 22, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3.        The Branch Head, Sahara India, Ropar, Near Head Post Office, Ropar.

4.        Sahara India Pariwar Sector Office, SCF 40/41, Mohali 160059 through its concerned official.

5.        Sh. Surjit Singh, Flat No.501, GH-52, Sector 20, Panchkula.

                                   ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Varun Chawla, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Navjinder Singh Sidhu, Adv. for OPs

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             The instant complaint has been filed by Smt. Manju Chawla, complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit & others.

2.               Briefly stated, on 7.10.2004 the complainant had applied for a flat to the OPs under their scheme i.e. Swarn/ Rajat Yojana i.e. Sahara City Home Township in Chandigarh.  She has deposited a total sum of Rs.4,06,046/- till date on various occasions. The complainant has alleged that the OPs have still not started construction on the site and are only making false assurances to her.  She had also sent a legal notice to the OPs demanding an alternate flat alongwith compensation in case the one she had booked was not ready.  Since the OPs have not complied with her request, she has filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  She has made prayer for an alternate flat alongwith compensation. 

3.               The OPs in their written reply have submitted that Rs.4,06,046/- was only an advance towards a flat at Sahara City Homes.  They have also submitted that the project was subject to various statutory  compliances and though they had acquired 200 acres of land for development of the project, the project could not be executed as the matter was sub judice before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide CWP No.460 of 2007.  Pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, a fresh writ petition was again filed by the OPs vide CWP No.2161 of 2009 challenging the orders of the competent authority. This writ petition was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Bench and the OPs have now filed an LPA against the said order.

              Since the matter is still sub judice before the Court, the principle of force majeure would apply and the OPs are not in a position to construct and thereby hand over the flat to the complainant.  They have thus offered to refund the money paid by the complainant.  

4.               Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.               We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.               The complainant is definitely aggrieved because her dream of owning a flat seems to have gone awry since the possession has not been delivered to her and prices of flats have risen considerably. The stand of the OPs would seem justified that they cannot start construction unless all clearances are received for the property from the competent authorities   However, it must be pointed out that ‘should they have floated the scheme when they were not in a position to implement it’?  This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. They should not have floated a scheme before obtaining all these clearances.  The demand of the complainant for a flat cannot be met since the project has not yet taken off. 

              In view of this factual position, we deem it appropriate to allow this complaint in favour of the complainant and direct the OPs to refund the  money paid by her to them alongwith interest and compensation.  This offer has already been made by the OPs in their written statement.

7.               In view of the above discussion, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs:

a)        The OPs would refund the entire payment made to them by the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the actual date of refund.

b)        The OPs shall further pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

8.               This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the decreed amount would carry interest @ 12% per annum besides the costs of litigation from the date of order till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.