State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Girish Agarwal S/O Lat. Dr. ... vs Sahara City Homes Marketing And Seels ... on 23 October, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 COMPLAINT CASE NO: 02 /2017 Dr.Girish Agarwal r/o c/o Rajgirish Hospital, Tehsil Hindon City Distt. Karauli (Raj.) Vs. Sahara City Homes, Marketing & Sales Corporation (Sahara Prime City Ltd.) through Regional Manager/Director Opp. Radha Swami Satsang Vyas, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors. Date of Order 12.10.2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mr. Lokesh Sharma counsel for the complainant Mr.Abhishek Geetesh counsel for the non-applicants BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This complaint has been filed on 2.1.2017 with the 2 contention that consumer complainant booked the flat in the residential scheme of the non-applicants for the use of his family. On 8.3.2006 he paid the booking amount of Rs.1,35,704/-. The total sale price of the flat was Rs.27,07,000/- which was later reduced to Rs. 26,94,000/- and possession was to be handed over in 38 months. The complainant paid the total amount of Rs. 27,49,400/- which is more than the agreed sale price of Rs. 26,94,000/- but possession of the property was not handed over to him. He has to take other rented premises in Jaipur on the monthly rent of Rs. 28,000/- to Rs.30,000/- hence, the complaint has been filed with the relief that the amount which has been paid by the complainant be refunded alongwith 18% interest, rent which is paid by the complainant be reimbursed and for mental agony and cost of proceedings amount has also been asked.
The contention of the non-applicant is that due to the stay of the apex court he could not give possession of the property which comes under the clause of force majeure and no deficiency is committed by the non-applicant. Hence, the complaint should have been dismissed.
3Both the parties have entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the original complaint as well as documents submitted by the parties.
As per Ex. 1 the amount of Rs. 1,35,704/- was paid. Booking was confirmed vide Anx. 2. Allotment letter Ex. 3 was issued which clearly states that possession was to be handed over within 38 months from the date of allotment i.e. 3.6.2009. Vide Anx. 4 the sale price and the area was changed. Anx. 5 is the payment plan. The complainant sent reminders for delivery of possession Ex. 7,10, and 13 but possession was not handed over to him. Vide Anx. 66 on 21.5.2014 it was informed to the complainant that as litigation is going on between Sahara and SEBI there is a restrain order to part with movable or immovable property since month of November 2013 but as per Ex. A 3 the possession was to be handed over within 38 months from 3.6.2009 meaning thereby that till August 2012 the possession was to be handed over and if any stay was become operative in November 2013 it cannot effect or cure deficiency committed by the non-applicants. Vide Anx. R 3 the non-applicant has admitted that the complainant has paid Rs. 27,49,400/- . Non-applicant has failed to give 4 possession of the property inspite of complete payment, the complaint deserves to be allowed.
The non-applicant has also submitted order passed by the apex court on 11.7.2016 and 3.8.2016 wherein the apex court has pleased to permit the non-applicant to sale the property. Hence, inspite of the fact that the complainant paid the amount more than the sale price the non-applicants have not delivered the possession of the property and complainant is entitled to have his money back i.e. Rs. 27,49,400/- alongwith 15% interest which the non-applicant has agreed to charge from the complainant in case of delayed payments. Looking at the fact that the complainant could not get the possession of the property inspite of the payment of sale price he is also entitled for Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of proceedings.
The complainant has further pleaded that he has to take another house for rent in Jaipur and to support this contention Ex. 67 rent note in favour of the wife of the complainant is submitted which is for the period of 1.6.2012 to 30.4.2013 and further Anx. 68 which is for the period from 1.4.2014 to 5 28.2.2015. The rent deeds goes to show that a complete house has been taken on rent which was also furnished but here in the present case the property which was booked by the complainant is a flat and not furnished. Hence, he is also entitled for the rent from 1.8.2012 to 30.4.2013 and further from 1.4.2014 to 28.2.2015 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand ). For rest of the period no lease document is submitted.
Hence, in view of the above the complaint is allowed. The complainant will get Rs. 27,49,400/- alongwith 15% interest from the date of deposit of the amount and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs are awarded as compensation for mental agony. The complainant will also get Rs. 20,000/- as cost of proceedings. The complainant is also entitled for the rent from 1.8.2012 to 30.4.2013 and further from 1.4.2014 to 28.2.2015 at the rate of Rs.15,000/-. The order be complied within one month failing the amount of compensation, rent and cost of proceedings would carry 9% interest.
(Nisha Gupta) President nm