V.R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member—These two appeals arise out of same judgement rendered by the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, in complaint case No. 42/2009. By that judgement, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs. 8,18,322 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and cost of Rs. 20,000.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the proceedings of the complaint case. Ms. Divya Rathore is the original complainant and M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd. and other authorised officers of Sahara City Home, Sahara Commercial Corporation Ltd. were the original opponents before the State Commission.

3. It is an admitted fact that a housing scheme in the name “Sahara City Homes” was floated in 217 cities throughout India. An advertisement was published in pursuance to the sale campaign. There is no dispute about the fact that Ms. Divya Rathore booked a Row House in one of such scheme to be completed in Jaipur Township. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Row House was booked on 20th December 2005 and that Ms. Divya Rathore paid an amount of Rs.8,18,322 in all