SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD Vs. TAPASYA PALAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2013 in CC No. 73 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short the "State Commission"), both Sahara Prime City Ltd. (for short "The Developer") and the Complainant preferred First Appeals 489 and 606 of 2013 respectively under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint directing the Developer to restore the allotment of the subject flat immediately in the Complainant's favour on payment of the balance consideration and hand over possession of the same within six months from the date of the order. It was further ordered that in case it was not possible to hand over the possession of the subject flat to the Complainant, the Developer would refund the amount of Rs.4,06,050/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was also awarded to the Complainant towards compensation and costs.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant booked a flat with the Developer on 10.02.2006 by depositing a sum of Rs.1,37,029/- towards booking amount. The Developer, vide their letter dated 24.04.2006, confirmed the booking fixing the total cost of the flat at Rs.27,07,000/-. Thereafter the Complainant deposited the instalments as and when demanded by the Developer and deposited a total sum of Rs.4,06,050/- which amounted to 15% of the agreed total consideration. The Complainant approached the Developer time and again for possession but though she was assured that the construction would start there was no progress. Ultimately, the Complainant was allotted Flat bearing No. C-4/306 vide allotment letter dated 21.08.2009. Subsequently, Complainant fell ill in December, 2009. After recovery from her ailment in April, 2010 she contacted the Developer about the status of her booking. She was told that her allotment was cancelled. She gave a representation to the Developer that she was ill and expressed her willingness to pay the amount due and accept the possession, which was refused. The Complainant got issued legal notice dated 11.10.2012 but there was no response. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) The Developer, despite service of notice, did not appear before the State Commission.