SADHANA Vs. SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants booked a residential bungalow with the opposite party in a project namely 'Sahara City Homes', which the opposite party was to develop in Nagpur. A bungalow to be constructed on plot admeasuring 473.70 sq. mtr., and having built up area of 380.73 sq. mtr., was allotted to them by the opposite party. The parties then entered into an agreement dated 24.1.2009, incorporating their respective obligations, in respect of the said transaction. As per the allotment letter dated 02.3.2009, issued by the opposite party to the complainant, the possession of the bungalow was to be delivered within 38 months from the date of allotment subject to force-majeure circumstances. The possession therefore ought to have been delivered by 02.5.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that despite they having already paid a sum of Rs.1,43,56,000/- to the opposite party, the possession of the bungalow has not been offered and in fact even the construction is not complete, till date. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,43,56,000/-, along with compensation quantified at Rs.1,43,56,000/- on account of deficiency in service and liquidated damages @ Rs.2.00 lacs per month with effect from May, 2012. They are also seeking cost of litigation and cost of sending legal notice to the opposite party.

(2.) The opposite party did not file written version even within 45 days from the date on which they were served, they having been served on 05.2016. The right of the opposite party to file written version therefore, was closed vide order dated 05.2016. By that time, almost three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party had expired.

(3.) The complainants have filed affidavit by way of evidence in support of their case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the allotment letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant shows that the possession was to be offered to the complainant within 38 months from the date of allotment, though the offer of possession could be delayed on account of circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party. The aforesaid period of 38 months expired on 02.5.2012. There is no evidence of the possession having been delayed on account of reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party is clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainants by not offering possession of the bungalow on or before 02.5.2012. The complainants cannot be compelled to wait any more for possession of the said bungalow and are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party, along with appropriate compensation.