1. Complainant Shri Pramod Dumore  has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Short facts leading to the filing of the present Complaint may be narrated as under :- 

2)      Complainant Shri Pramod Dumore  claims to be resident of Nagpur and was residing on rent. Complainant was in need of house for resident and he was searching for the same. O.P. namely Sahara City Homes Ltd. was dealing in the business of construction of flats and building and is a reputed Builders and Developers and had given  huge publicity about their scheme of flats and also regarding construction of one building at Mouza Manapur, Wardha Road. O.P. Complainant therefore decided to book the flat  and so he approached to O.P. namely Sahara City Homes and booked flat No.406 in block No.10 for a consideration of Rs.28,81,000/- on 19/11/2008. Complainant has contended that on the same date i.e. on 19/11/2008 complainant has also deposited Rs.2,88,100/- and O.P. had also issued receipt for the same. Complainant thereafter deposited Rs.1,44,050 on 15/01/2009, Rs.90,000/- on dt.24/03/2009, Rs.3,27,000/- on 03/10/2009, Rs.1000/- on dt.07/10/2009 and Rs.68,024/- on dt.08/10/2009. In this manner complainant has deposited  total amount of Rs.09/17,174/-. Complainant had also taken loan from State Bank of India for purchase of flat. Complainant has contended that meanwhile the O.P. informed him that the building in which the flat booked was not ready and asked complainant to take flat in another building but the complainant did not agree. Complainant has contended that he has also taken loan from State Bank of India. Despite this fact O.P. did not start the construction of the building despite agreement till 27/01/2012. Complainant thereafter issued notice to O.P. on 27/01/2012 and informed that building was not ready and asked the complainant to take another flat for which complainant was not ready. Complainant contended that despite payment of huge amount of Rs.09,17,174/- O.P. had not completed the construction. Complainant has contended that he had deposited the sum of Rs.09,17,174/-  and was ready to perform his part of contract by paying remaining balance amount. Complainant has contended that in case he had taken flat at any other place then would have earned more money because of increase in the price of flat. Complainant has contended that by not handing over possession of the flat by O.P. the O.P. has committed deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice. Complainant has therefore filed the present complaint for direction to O.P to handover flat No.406 in block No.10  and in case it is not possible then to refund the amount of Rs.09,17,174/-   alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 19/11/2008 alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- and so the complaint.

3)        At the outset  O.P.No has denied all the contentions made by the complainant in his complaint. O.P. has contended that complainant is not at all ‘Consumer’ and complaint was not tenable in law.  O.P. has also denied that the complainant in need of refund of amount paid to O.P.   O.P. has further contended that the complainant was bound by the terms of agreement and more particularly term No.18 relating to ‘Force Majuere’  which implies inter-alia the delay  caused due to  circumstances  beyond   the control  of the company namely Sahara Prime City. The Opposite parties have taken a plea   that after the contract was entered into litigation started between the Opposite parties/Sahara Prime City and Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the same had reached the Hon’ble  Supreme Court.  The Opposite parties have also taken a plea that it  was beyond the control of the opposite parties Sahara Prime City to transfer or alienate any property in view of certain directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt  Petition 412/2012 which was filed by SEBI and the said orders are still in force. The opposite parties are bound by the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court restraining them from parting with or handing over the possession of moveable or immovable  properties  in the  projects. The Opposite parties have also taken a plea that name of SEBI has been incorporated in 7/12 extract of the company and embargo has been put for any transfer of property.   The opposite parties have also taken  a  specific plea  that there was also Arbitration  Clause  in the contract  and so the dispute can be resolved only by the  Sole Arbitrator. The complaint filed by the complainant is therefore not tenable in law and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

4)      We have gone through the contents of the complaint, 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.

5)      We have heard Mr.Pandhare, 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 allotment letter. From allotment letter it is amply clear that complainant had booked flat bearing flat No.406 in block No.10 for a consideration of Rs.28,81,000/- on 19/11/2008. Complainant has also placed on record one copy of payment receipts showing the payment of instalments from time to time. Complainant also filed on record copy of mails exchanged between the parties. We have heard advocate Mrs.Renuka Nalamwar for O.P. We have also gone through the copy of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt  Petition 412/2012 which was filed by SEBI and the same clearly shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has put an embargo on transfer of moveable and immovable property. Learned advocate for O.P. has also admitted the receipt of the amount as contended by the complainant and there is no dispute on this count. In view of the aforesaid disscussion we are of the opinion that the O.P. namely Sahara City Homes has indulged in deficiency in service by not handing over the possession of the flat booked by complainant within stipulated period. It is further clear that in view of the embargo put by the Hon’ble Supreme Court O.P. Sahara Prime City cannot alienate or transfer any flat to the complainant and therefore the amount paid by the complainant to O.P. will have to be refunded back. It is needless to mention that due to the assurances given by the Sahara City Homes Complainant was waiting invain for getting the flat, but all his hopes were shattered. Complainant is therefore entitled for compensation as well as interest on the amount paid by him to O.P. and so we pass the following order.            

//ORDER//

i.        Consumer Complaint is hereby partly allowed.

ii.       O.P.is  hereby directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.09,17,174/-  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 by the complainant.

iii.      O.P. is 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  complainant.

iv.      The O.P. is hereby also  directed to  pay  litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  

v.       The payment of the amount in compliance of the above order shall  be made within the span of three months  from the receipt  of the copy of the order by the O.P. 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.