Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/318

Ram Bhajan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi

07 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No: 318 dated 17.08.2022.                              Date of decision: 07.08.2024.

Ram Bhajan Gupta S/o. Mussadi Lal, A-5, Celestia Grand, Omaxe, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sahara Prime City Limited, Head Office Platina, 11^th Floor, C-59, G-Bock, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 through authorized signatory (Mail at:-
2. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Centre, 8^th Floor, 2, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, lucknow-226024 through authorized signatory (Mail at:-

…..Opposite parties 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         None. (Right to file written statement stands                                                          already extinguished vide order dated                                                                    05.01.2024)

For OP2 to OP4             :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant through OP4 applied for residential flat type as Crown Type-B (STILT PLUS 9 Floors) 2 bedroom + Terrace at Sahara City Homes at Pune in the year 2005 for Rs.27,58,000/- due to his planning to shift at Pune from Ludhiana and he deposited certain amounts with OP2 through OP4, the detail of which is reproduced as under:-

The complainant further stated that OP2 vide letter dated 06.03.2006 confirmed the booking at Sahara City Homes-Pune and asked him to start the payment of 10% of unit price, to be paid in 24 equal monthly installments, but after collecting installment of Rs.10,704/- till 31.01.2007, the OPs stopped collecting future installments till further communication in writing. The complainant claimed to have deposited Rs.4,84,535/- till 31.01.2007 above 10% of the cost of Rs.27,58,000/- of flat/unit No.21. However, OP1 through its Zonal Office, Pune sent letter dated 08.10.2012 informing the complainant that the old unit types are not available under sanctioned approvals and gave option to choose unit type 3 bedrooms with new price. In case of no response till 08.11.2012, then it shall be presumed that both options are acceptable to the complainant and not willing to continue his booked and ready take the refund of advanced amount along with 8% simple interest. Then the complainant visited OP4 on 08.10.2012 and submitted his written request for accepting option 2. The complainant made several written representations besides personal visit to OP4. OP1 replied vide its letter dated 07.02.2014 with reference to letter dated 30.01.2014 regarding the status related with earlier letters dated 08.10.2012, 06.12.2012, the same is still under discussion with the management and are in regular touch with management for feedback. The complainant further stated that he sent many letters dated 20.05.2017, 29.08.2017, 26.02.2019 and 26.02.2019 to the OPs but no response was received. The OPs have not performed their obligation despite receipt of huge amount from the complainant of providing accommodation and even failed to get necessary permission from the concerned competent authorities qua their projects. The OPs are legally bound to obtain completion and occupation certificate which they did not obtain from the competent authority of Pune and even no basic amenities were provided despite the promise. The complainant has suffered loss due to act and conduct of the OPs due to non delivering the physical possession of the flat and also increase in cost of construction in the last years. The complainant is entitled for compensation from the OPs. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to give physical possession of the flat/unit No.21 as Crown Type-B (STILT PLUS 9 Floors) 2 bedroom + Terrace at Sahara City Homes, Pune or in alternative Unit type 3 bedrooms at Pune or to refund the deposited amount of Rs.4,84,535/- along with interest. The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of rs.55,000/-.

2.                Notice was sent to OP2 to OP4 through registered post on 06.09.2022 but the same was not received back either served or unserved even after elapse of period of 30 days. As such, OP2 to OP4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.11.2022.

3.                OP1 appeared through Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate  but did not filed written statement despite grant of sufficient opportunities and even absented itself from the proceedings. As such, right of OP1 to file written statement was extinguished vide order dated 05.01.2024.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 are the copies of the receipts of amount deposited with the OPs, Ex. C10 is the copy of booking confirmation letter dated 06.03.2006 of the OPs, Ex. C11 is the copy of letter dated 08.10.2012 of the OPs, Ex. C12 is the copy of letter dated 07.02.2014 of the OPs, Ex. C13 is the copy of letter dated 08.03.2017 of the complainant, Ex. C14 is the copy of Email dated 29.04.2017 of the OPs, Ex. C15 is the copy of letter dated 20.05.2017 of the complainant, Ex. C16 is the copy of letter dated 24.08.2017 of the complainant, Ex. C17 is the copy of letter dated 26.02.2019 of the complainant, Ex. C18 and Ex. C19 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C20 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                None turned up for OP1 today also. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant. We proceed to decide the case on merits.   

6.                It is not disputed that in the year 2005, the complainant applied for residential flat type as Crown Type-B (STILT PLUS 9 Floors) 2 bedroom + Terrace at Sahara City Homes, Pune for a consideration of Rs.27,58,000/-. The said booking was confirmed vide letter dated 06.03.2006 Ex. C10 with request to the complainant to start the payment of 10% of unit price to be paid in 24 equal monthly installments started from April 2006 to be paid in between 1^st to 28^th of every month. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4,84,535/- with the OPs vide receipts Ex. C1 to Ex. C9. The OPs sent a letter dated 08.10.2012 Ex. C11 to the complainant, which is reproduced as under:-

“We express our sincere thanks to you for your discerning response and umpteen patience to our Sahara City Homes, Pune Project. We take great pleasure to inform you that we have the necessary clearance to start the site development activities and the same shall be commenced to transform the dream project into concrete reality.

However the concerned Authorities after taking its time to provide approvals and exercising its discretionary power, has suggested some changes in the submitted Lay-Out which resulted a major change in the availability of unit types in the proposed project. It is regretted that at present, the old unit types, in which you had shown interest by paying token amount, are not available under sanctioned approvals.

However, considering trust, you have shown in us by paying token amount, the Management has decided to provide the following options among the available units at present in lieu of your earlier interest.

1. In case, if you opt to choose option number 1, then you are required to give consent to following condition:

1. You cannot transfer the opted unit till possession of same is handed over to you.

2. If you opt to choose option number 2, then mentioned price shall be applicable however with transfer option.
3. If both options are not acceptable, then company shall have an option to cancel your booking and company shall refund the deposited amount along with interest.

Please let us have your preference, latest by 08/11/2012. Pease note that, in case your preference is not received by the above mentioned date, it shall be presumed that both options are not acceptable to you and you are not willing to continue your booking and you are ready to take the refund of advanced amount along with 8% simple interest.

Kindly consider that there are limited units referred in options, thus same shall be provided on first come first serve basis. Company reserves its right to allot same.”

The complainant claimed to have chosen option 2 and thereafter, made several personal visits to the OPs for informing regarding status of the flat besides writing letters dated 08.03.2017 Ex. C13, dated 20.05.2017 Ex. C15, dated 24.08.2017 Ex. C16, dated 26.02.2019 Ex. C17. However, the OPs did not choose to contest the case by appearing as well as by filing written statement, affidavit and documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

7.                           Although the evidence placed on record by the complainant has gone unrebutted. The OPs have even failed to make the delivery of the opted flat to the complainant despite acknowledging receipt of amount of Rs.4,84,536/- deposited vide receipts Ex. C1 to Ex. C9. Booking of the flat was done by the OPs on 06.03.2006 vide Booking Conformation Letter Ex. C10 and further asked the complainant to opt for flat mentioned in letter dated 08.10.2012 Ex. C11 as per which the complainant gave his consent by accepting option 2. The complainant went letters to the OPs for confirming status of the booked flat and lastly wrote letter dated 26.02.2019 Ex. C17 but the OPs did not performed their part of obligation. It is evident that option letter seems to a play to evade the refund of money received from the flat buyers. As such, finding no other way, the complainant opted to get the booking amount refunded which was lying with the OPs since the respective dates of deposit. The OPs have failed to perform their obligation to render delivery of booked flat to the complainant nor the OPs made any effort to refund the booking amount to the complainant. Hence, the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘deficiency” as enshrined in Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-

1. any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.”

8.                The complainant made every good effort to get the refund of booking amount with interest from the OPs but the OPs failed to do so. Even the OPs kept in tacked the hard earned money of the complainant since long (when the flat was booked). As such, after appreciating pleadings of the parties and after perusing the documents on record, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to refund the amount deposited vide receipts Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 with the OPs as well as for compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress injustice done to the complainant. The amount of compensation can be determined by taking into facts and circumstances of each case and also mitigating circumstances that may arise in favour of the OP as well. Reference can be made to Vidya and others Vs M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.8985 of 2022 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 29.07.2024 (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 557) whereby the  entire deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the complainants along with interest @12% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund.

                   In these set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,84,536/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit of amounts as per receipts Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 till the date of its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay composite cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

9.                As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4,84,536/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit of amounts as per receipts Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 till the date of its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay composite cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

(Monika Bhagat)                                (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                                President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.08.2024.

Gobind Ram.