Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1)       Complainants have filed the present complaint under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for claiming vacant possession of flat and also for compensation and alternatively for refund of the amount of consideration. Short facts leading to the filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under :- 

2)      Complainant No.1 Ashok Vinayak Sakalikar claims to be senior  Citizen and was working as an Inspector in Electricity department of Government of Maharashtra. Complainant No.2 Ravikumar Sakalikar is residing abroad. Complainant No.3 Dipti is the daughter of complainant No.1. Complainant Nos.2 and 3 have executed power of attorney in favour of complainant No.1. Complainants have taken a plea that  they were desirous to own one flat at Nagpur and O.Ps. namely Sahara Prime City Ltd had given huge publicity to Sahara Housing Scheme which were engaged in the business as builders and developers. O.Ps. have developed the housing scheme at Nagpur Wardha Road. O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 who were in the sales department were frequently contacted with the complainant No.1 and also convinced the complainant No.1 to purchase one flat. Complainant Nos.1 to 3 became ready to book the unit bearing flat/unit No.C-12/404  consisting of three bedrooms, unit area 117.91 sq.mtr. on forth floor at the price of Rs.38,27,000/-. Out of total consideration amount of Rs.38,27,000/- complainant paid an amount of Rs.19,97,232/- from 19/12/2008 to 14/01/2011. O.Ps. had given assurances about completion of construction and also possession of the unit within 15 months. Complainants have  contended that they had made payment of Rs.19,97,232/-, but the O.Ps. failed to handover the possession. Complainants on numerous occasions made enquiry  with the O.Ps. regarding possession of the unit No.C-12/404.  But there was no response. Complainants had also submitted one application for cancellation of unit as they were fed up for delay which was taken place in handing over possession. Complainants have contended that they had invested hard earned money but the O.Ps. did not carried out the construction of the flat/unit and also did not hand over the possession. Complainant has contended that O.Ps. have utilising the hard earned money of the complainant and depriving him for the possession. O.Ps.