Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/10/2019

Abhishek Chaudhary s/o Satya Prkash Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupendra Pareek

10 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 10/2019

 

Abhishek Chaudhary s/o Satya Prakash Chaudhary r/o A-24, Asheesh Vihar, Bank Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan

Vs.

Sahara Prime City Ltd., through regional Manager Opp.Radha Swami Satsang Vyas, Bilwa, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 10.1.2020

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Kamal Kumar Bagri- Presiding Member

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. Bhupendra Pareek counsel for the complainant

Mr.M.P. Khandelwal counsel for the non-applicants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. KAMAL KUMAR BAGRI, PRESIDING MEMBER):

2

 

This complaint has been filed on 8.1.2019 with the contention that he booked a flat with the non-applicants. Allotment letter was issued on 1.10.2010 and within 38 months the possession of the property was to be handed over to the complainant but inspite of the payment of Rs.23,92,487/- the possession of the property has not been handed over to the complainant.

 

Per contra the contention of the non-applicants is that due to stay of the apex court possession of the property could not be handed over to the complainant and non-applicants are not deficient.

 

Both the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

It is not in dispute that booking was made by the complainant with non-applicants. Allotment letter is dated 1.10.2010 and within 38 months the possession of the unit was to be handed over to the complainant which was not done till today. The complainant has paid total sum of Rs.23,92,487/- with the non-applicant.

3

 

The complainant has relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Complaint No. 02/2017 Dr.Girish Agarwal Vs. Sahara City Homes where on the facts of the case relief is allowed.

 

The only contention of the non-applicants is that due to stay of the apex court dated 21.11.2013 the possession could not be handed over to the complainant which is still continue today. Be that may be the case the complainant could not be forced to wait for possession of the property for indefinite time and further more this is not the case of the non-applicant that project is complete or he is ready to give possession but due to the stay possession could not be handed over to the complainant.

 

The counsel for the complainant has rightly pointed out that in case of default the non-applicant is charging 15% interest. Hence, the same interest be allowed to him.

 

In view of the above that inspite of promise the possession of the unit has not been handed over to the

 

4

 

complainant, the non-applicants are deficient and complainant could not forced to wait for indefinite period.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to get Rs.23,92,487/- alongwith 15% interest from the date of each deposit. The complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of proceedings which should be paid to the complainant within one month otherwise it will carry 9% interest from the date of the order.

 

(Meena Mehta) (K.K.Bagri)

Member Presiding Member

nm