Haryana

Hisar

358/2013

Sushil Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Commercial Coop. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P R Garg

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HISAR   

 

                                                                Complaint  No.   358 of    2013

                                                                Date of Institution: 29.08.2013

                                                                 Date of Decision  : 05.02.2015

 

Sahil Sharma aged 32 years H.No.129, Vijay Colony, Gali No.8, Jawahar Nagar, Hisar

                                                                                 ....Complainant.

                                           Versus.

 

1. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, Sahara India Centre,2, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj Lucknow-226 024 through its Managing Director.
2. Sahara City Homes, Pune Survey No.10, Porwal Road, Vishrantwadi Lohegaon Road, Dhanori, Pune-411015. Through its Principal officer/ Authorized Signatory.
3. Sahara India, Branch Office 2^nd Floor Neelkhanth Complex, Camp Chowk, Hisar through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer.

                                                                            ….Opposite parties

         

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

Before:        SHRI VINOD JAIN, PRESIDENT

          SMT.  RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Sh. P.R.Garg, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.N.K.Goel, counsel for opposite parties.

 

ORDER

 

                   Undisputedly, opposite parties invited applications from public at large, for allotment of flats in their scheme known as “Sahara City Homes”  Pune.  In response thereto, complainant Sahil Sharma, on 31.7.2007 deposited Rs.1,20,550/-, vide receipt of the same day dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure C-7), for allotment of two bad rooms flats against total sale consideration of Rs.44,11,000/-.  The project was to be completed  within two years, but the opposite parties failed to do so and later on  sent letter dated 8.10.2012(Annexure C-1) to the complainant and to other similarly situated  persons informing that necessary approvals from concerned authorities was not received and so they were going to start another project seeking the option of the customers, that in case they were interested in the flats then they should send their fresh consent for different types of flats on different rates as per schedule given in said letter and if not interested, then their  amount  received shall be refunded, with simple interest @ 8% per annum. Complainant did not communicate any option to the opposite parties as he was interested to get back his amount with interest, atleast @ 15% per annum, being awarded by Hon’ble Apex Court in similar cases. But the opposite parties, sent cheque dated 3.6.2013(Annexure C-8) for Rs.1,73,634/- i.e.  refund of principle amount of Rs.1,20,550/- with interest amount of Rs.53,084/- (presumably  by @ 8% simple interest).   Now the complainant has brought this complaint, on 26.8.2013, averring all this as  not only great deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, but also as un fair trade practice.  He has prayed for interest  @ 15%  per annum, from the date of deposit till payment, besides damages for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.

2.                 To contest the case of the complainant, opposite parties have pleaded that the concerned competent authority, has suggested major changes  in the layout plan, which has resulted into non availability of the unit types and so said option letter dated 8.10.2012 was sent, asking the complainant to give his preference, otherwise to return his money with  8% simple interest. It is also pleaded that the complainant is not the ‘consumer’ and this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

3.                 Both the parties have placed on record copies of various documents, admitting aforesaid facts.  Aforesaid preliminary objections taken in the reply, are not pressed before us nor we find any merit in the preliminary objections. Since the complainant had paid advance money of Rs.1,20,550/- to the opposite parties for getting a flat within two years against total sale consideration of  Rs.24,11,000/- and the opposite parties failed to give the flat, to the complainant even after more than 6 years, so the complainant, who is a ‘consumer” within its  definition  in Consumer Protection Act has locus standi  to file this complaint. Cause of action also accrued to the complaint within territorial jurisdiction of this forum, so this forum has also jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  

4.                 It is very clear that at the time of inviting and accepting earnest money from the complainant and also from others similarly situated persons, the opposite parties, had no sanction from the competent  authorities for the layout plan according to which flats were being offered and money was being collected.  The opposite parties had not yet received approval from concerned competent authority, due to which, later on, opposite parties had to change their construction plan, inviting fresh options,  for different types of flats, for different amounts.  It is not only gross deficiency of service on their part but it is also a big public fraud and un fair trade practice.

5.                 Further, faced with the situation, when the opposite parties had to   forgo their earlier plan, then they were also not entitled to behave unilaterally, i.e. for giving said two opinions to the complainant and to other similarly  situated persons, either to accept their fresh offer  on the dictated lines, or to get back refund of the earnest money with only simple  interest @ 8%.  The opposite parties were thus, again trying  to take  un due benefit of their own wrong, in  returning the earnest money only with simple interest @ 8% per annum which was highly unreasonable  rate.    The amount received from the complainant and from number of other similarly situated persons, was wrongfully used by the opposite parties, for such a long period of more than six years.  Had the amount of earnest money, been deposited,  by the complainant, even  in some fixed deposit receipt in some Nationalized Bank , he would have received interest at some higher rate. In similar case Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exch. Board of India” Civil Appeal No.9813 of 2011 decided on 31.8.2012 has given interest @ 15% per annum.   This case is  fully applicable in the facts of the case in hand.  Therefore in the case in hand, complainant is entitled for interest @ 15% per annum.

6.                 Beside it, the complainant  is also entitled for damages as he has waited for sufficient long time, for having  his own  residential flat. He was expecting to get it within a period of two years, but he had to unsuccessfully wait for more than six years.  By this time, prices of the flats have also increased many folds.

7.                    Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties,  to pay interest @ 15% per annum,  from the date of  deposit  of Rs.1,20,550/- i.e.  from 31.7.2007 till payment.  However, amount of Rs.1,73,634/-, already paid vide cheque dated 3.6.2013(Annexure C-8),  shall be duly adjusted. Complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-,  for his harassment, mental agony etc.  and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-, against the opposite parties.

Announced in open court:                          President,

Dated:05.02.2015                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Forum, Hisar.

                                     

 

                                                                      Member/05.02.2015.