SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED Vs. VIJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These first appeals have been filed by the appellant Sahara Prime City Ltd. & ors against the order dated 16.10.2018, 06.12.2018, 11.10.2018 & 15.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No.86/2017, 119/2017, 128/2017 & 15/2018. As the facts of these cases are similar and same issues are involved in these appeals, they are being decided together. First Appeal No.531 of 2019, Sahara Prime City Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Vijay Gupta shall be taken as lead case.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 15.03.2005, the respondent applied for the booking of a unit in the project "Sahara City Homes, Jaipur", of the appellants by transfer of a booking that had been previously made in the name of the respondent's father. On 06.06.2008, the appellants approved the transfer of the unit booked by the respondent's father in the name of the respondent. On 12.03.2005, booking amount of Rs.1,35,350/- was paid by the respondent to the appellants with respect to the said unit. On 21.08.2009, the appellants issued the allotment letter confirming the booking of the unit No.C3/605 in Sahara City Homes, Jaipur in favour of the respondent for the total sale consideration of Rs.27,07,000/-. It was stated in the allotment letter that in case of delay of payment of installments by the respondent, the respondent would be charged 15% p.a. interest on the said installment amount from the date on which such payment was due. On 07.09.2009, the respondent requested the appellants regarding the change of his payment plan to that of construction linked plan. The complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.24,80,375/-. As possession was not delivered, the consumer complaint No.86 of 2017 was filed by the respondent contending that possession of the flat was not handed over to the respondent within stipulated time, there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and a sum of Rs.24,80,375/- was prayed for refund along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. along with the compensation for the mental, physical harassment amounting to Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- for cost of the proceedings, bank charges amounting to Rs.8,00,000/-, rent expenses amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- and for the delay in possession amounting to Rs.2,61,945/-. The appellant filed their written statement before the State Commission contending that complaint of the respondent is baseless since the contract between the appellants and the respondent was only for the purchase of a unit/flat and not for the construction of the same by the site owner with a contractor. The State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because matter was to be referred to arbitration in case of any dispute. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the contempt petition bearing No.412 of 2012 in the civil appeal 9813 of 2011 titled as SEBI Vs. Sahara Real Estate Corporation Ltd. imposed ban on the appellants to part with any of the immovable properties. However, the State Commission passed the following order:-

(3.) Hence the present appeal.