SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President, Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
Sahara Prime City Ltd. & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Rajeev Agrawal —Respondent
Revision Petition No.21 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 07/10/2014 in Appeal No. 521/2014 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 5.10.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:
For the Sahara Prime City:Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Suresh Chandra Agarwal, Auth.Rep (Father of Sh. Rajeev Agarwal)

IMPORTANT POINT
Concurrent finding of fact recorded by both Fora below cannot be disturbed in revision.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Allotment of plot—Demand letter—State Commission directed Sahara to handover possession of flat to Complainant on his paying balance 85% of amount due in terms of letter of allotment or in alternative, refund amount deposited by Complainant, along with 12% interest and further sums of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as compensation for mental agony and costs towards litigation—Concurrent finding of fact recorded by both Fora below to the effect that there was deficiency in service on part of Sahara in not delivering possession of flat to Complainant, within stipulated time, is based on appraisal of material on record and is not challenged on ground of perversity—No any jurisdictional error in impugned decision—Revision petitions dismissed. (Paras 9 to 12)

       Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.

       

ORDER (ORAL)

Revision Petition No. 21/2015 has been filed by a Real Estate Developer, viz. Sahara Prime City Ltd. (in short, “Sahara”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”), questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Bench No.2, Jaipur, (in short, “the State Commission”), in First Appeal No. 521/2014. A cross Revision Petition (No.2458/2016) has been filed by the Complainant, against the aforesaid order,, inter-alia, praying for enhancement of the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the State Commission to Rs.30,00,000/-. Since both the Revision Petitions arise out of a common order, these are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, a brief reference to the material facts would be necessary. These are:

2.1. Sometime in the year, 2004, Sahara launched a residential Scheme, christened as “Sahara Prime City Homes”. On 31.12.2004, the Complainant applied for allotment of a “Type-B” Flat under the said Scheme by depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as token advance. Vide letter dated 16.05.2005, while confirming the Booking, the Complainant was informed by Sahara that 10% of the Unit price was to be deposited in 24 equal monthly instalments. The price of the Unit was fixed at Rs.17,15,000/-. According to the Complainant, 5% of the cost of the flat was to be adjusted from the deposit already made by him and 85% of the balance amount was to be paid by him at the time of delivery of possession in the year 2007. On 03.06.2009, the Complainant received a letter from Sahara, in which a payment schedule of the balance amount of 85% was given and he was required to deposit monthly equated instalments of Rs. 40,493/- commencing from 01.07.2009, for 60 months. He was informed that thereafter, the possession of the flat would be delivered to him. Vide his letter dated 13.07.2009, the Complainant objected to the demand of 85% of the Unit price before delivery of possession of the Flat. While registering his protest to the said demand and pointing out that the possession of the Unit was expected to be delivered by the end of 2007, he made it clear to Sahara that though he had accepted the allotment, but he was not agreeable to the payments as demanded in the said letter. It was also stated that if no reply to the said letter was received, within a period of 20 days thereof, he will be free to resort to any action, available to him, to safeguard his interest.

2.2. Admittedly, there was no response to the said letter from Sahara. Instead, Sahara started issuing reminders to the Complainant, asking him to deposit the amounts demanded in the aforesaid letter, threatening that in the event of non-payment of the said amounts along with interest @ 15% p.a., by the due date, they will be free to exercise their option for cancellation of the Unit, allotted to him. It is not in dispute that as such there is no document on record to show that the allotment of the flat allotted was actually cancelled and intimation in that behalf was sent to the Complainant.

2.3. Faced with absolute silence on the part of Sahara and ……perhaps left with no other alternative, the Complainant filed the Complaint, sometime in the year 2011, inter alia, praying for a direction to Sahara to complete the construction of the allotted flat by the year 2012 and deliver possession thereof upon his payment of the balance 85% of the total consideration. In the alternative, it was prayed that if Sahara was unable to deliver possession of the flat, Sahara may be directed to refund the amount deposited by him, viz., Rs. 2,25,250/-, along with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of deposit, till the date of realisation alongwith compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

3. The Complaint was contested by Sahara on diverse grounds, including its maintainabi













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top