(Delivered on  07/01/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.       Complainant – Mr. Mahesh M. Mulchandani resident  of  Dhantoli, Nagpur  has moved   the present  Consumer Complaint  under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 2.      Short facts leading to the present  complaint  may be narrated  as under:-

          Complainant  Mr. Mahesh M. Mulchandani claims to be  resident at Dhantoli,  Nagpur and was doing  the business of running  a Daily Needs Shop at Dhantoli. The No. 2- Sahara Prime City Limited  claims to be  reputed  builders who were  providing  residential  flats  along with   all possible amenities. The O.P. namely  Sahara Prime  City Limited  had also given  advertisement  showing  various  amenities  and  comforts provided in the flat to be constructed  by them and so the complainant  was  attracted by lucrative offers made by the  O.P. Complainant- Mr. Mahesh Mulchandani therefore, entered into an agreement  with the O.P. for purchase  of one residential  unit No. B6/406, Block No. B6 on  fourth  floor admeasuring 88.73 Sq. Mtrs.  In the  residential  scheme  being  constructed  at Mouza Gavasi (Manapur).  Agreed cost of the residential  unit was Rs. 22,20,000/- and  same was payable  in 38  monthly installments as stipulated  in the  agreement. The complainant  has alleged   that  he has invested  his hard earned  money  in purchasing  proposed  residential  flat construct by the O.P. but despite the  payments made by the complainant, the O.P. failed  to  perform  their  part of contract  and did not  complete  the construction  work  of the building  and also did not  hand  over the possession  to the complainant despite  sending  letters to them.  The complainant  has already  paid an amount of Rs. 22,48,566/- . The complainant  has come to the conclusion  that  by not performing  the part of contract  and also not  constructing  the building  as well as not  hand over the possession of the  promise unit, the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 have indulged  in deficiency  in service and  same amounted to unfair  trade  practice. Complainant- Mahesh  Mulchandani  was therefore left with no other option but to file present  Complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 3.         The O.Ps. have  appeared  and resisted the complaint  by filing written version. The O.Ps. have also  filed their written notes of argument on record.  At the  outset  the O.Ps. have taken a plea that  the complainant had booked the present unit  with the sole intention  to earn profit  and so they  do not  fall   within   purview   of  definition  of the ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.Ps. have also taken a specific plea that  their  contract is also governed  by  Term No. 16 regarding Force Majure  which implies   the delay  due to  circumstances  beyond   the control  of the company.  The O.Ps. have  taken a plea  that the delay if  any had taken  place due to  on going  litigations between O.Ps. and  SEBI before the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court  and  so the  completion  of all  the projects had come to stand still.