Sahara City Homes directed to pay relief for deficiency in service

Kulwinder Sangha

Mohali, October 10

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum here  has directed  Sahara City Homes to refund Rs 2,57,234 to a Panchkula resident, along with interest at 8 per cent per annum, besides paying Rs 35,000 on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs 10,000 towards  cost of litigation.

Hitesh Verma  told the forum that in response to an advertisement published in  2004-2005, he booked a 2 BR Type-B Flat  on February 23, 2005,  in the Chandigarh unit of the Sahara City Homes (opposite parties)  as a provisional member. The flats were to be constructed at Bhabat, Zirakpur, and the possession of the flat was to be given to him in 2007. He deposited Rs 85,750 and his  membership  was thereafter confirmed vide letter dated July 18, 2005.

The complainant deposited 10 per cent of the sale price of the flat (Rs 1,71,504) against due receipts.  He was told that EMIs had to be paid only after the commencement of construction. He repeatedly visited  the offices of the OPs for possession but to no avail. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the OPs on November 30, 2009,  but no reply was sent by them.

As per the report retrieved from the site of India Post, notices to the OPs were duly served. However, none appeared for them.

Proceeding ex parte in the case,  the forum said it was established from the material placed on record that the complainant had deposited Rs 85,750 with the OPs, being provisional membership, and the membership was confirmed vide a  letter. The complainant had further proved the payment of  a total of Rs 2,57,234. It was also proved on record by the affidavit of the complainant that the OPs had promised to deliver possession of the flat in 2007. It was also proved from the material on record that the OPs had failed to intimate the status of the flat to the complainant. They had not even refunded the deposited amount to the complainant in spite of the issuance of a legal notice by the complainant to them.

Ample opportunity was given to the OPs to appear before the forum to contest the complaint, but despite the service of a notice, none appeared for the OPs, which amounted to admission of the averments in the complaint and that they did not want to say anything in this regard.