SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD. Vs. GYANA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') against the judgment dtd. 30/9/2019 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint no.125 of 2014.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the appellant/ opposite party are engaged in execution of residential projects. The respondent/ complainant booked a unit vide application dtd. 24/10/2011 in its project 'Sahara City Homes', Lucknow. The respondent sought a concession under Special Category (Physically Handicapped). The respondent also deposited the entire price of the flat, i.e., Rs.30,15,769.00 after reducing the discount of 30% for Physically Handicapped category. Respondent had claimed to be Physically Handicapped on the basis of a certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, Baliia. As per record which indicates 60% disability. Respondent's application was allowed based upon a verification report dtd. 26/12/2013 by Shri Alakh Sinha, Assistant Chief Manager Works, Head Legal Sahara Prime City Limited, wherein it was noted that as only the hip joint of the respondent was involved, he was not eligible for the rebate which was duly communicated to the respondent. Be that as it may, the appellant confirmed the booking of the respondent vide allotment letter dtd. 5/1/2012 and allotted a three bedroom flat measuring 135.25 sq mts., being Unit no. C 21/405. The respondent thereafter made payments initially but started defaulting in making timely payments and various reminders were sent to the respondent. Despite repeated requests and reminders the respondent defaulted in making payment. According to the appellant this was as he was found not eligible for Special Category Discount. The appellant contends that the respondent was not entitled for special category discount and has submitted that if he wishes to cancel the booking, the amounts so deposited by him would be refunded after deduction of Rs.10,000.00 as cancellation charges. The respondent instead of honouring the sale agreement or cancelling the booking, proceeded to file a complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer:

(3.) The case was contested by the parties before the State Commission which, after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, ordered as under: