Pune consumer forum orders Subroto Roy, Sahara Prime City Limited to refund Rs 7.85 lakhs

NP NEWS NETWORK 

Pune 

The district consumer disputes redressal forum, also called consumer forum, on August 7 directed the Subroto Roy led Sahara Prime City Limited (SPCL), three others, to jointly refund Rs 7.85 lakhs with 9 percent interest since 2012, to a flat buyer. If they fail to give the refund within 45 days, they will be fined Rs 50 per day, the forum made it clear.

[amazon_link asins=’B071HWTHPH,B0756RF9KY’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’policenama100-21′ marketplace=’IN’ link_id=’610d55e6-a141-11e8-bd17-f739d7eda335′]

Satish Narayan and Pushplata Dubey, both residents of Dhanori, had filed the complaint in this regard. The case was filed in 2017 against M/s Sahara Prime City Limited, Lucknow, Subrata Roy, promoter & director SPCL, Swapna Roy, promoter & director SPCL, Dheeraj Singh, national sales head SPCL, Sandeep Kshirsagar, West zonal head SPCL.

Sahara Prime City Limited (SPCL) had floated floated a scheme of residential flats at plot of land bearing survey no.10, Porwal Road, Vishrantwadi- Lohegaon Road, Dhanori, Pune. Complainants approached opposite party (SPCL) and agreed to purchase a 2.5 BHK residential unit bearing No.B3-5/103, admeasuring 125.33 sq. mt., situated on the first floor for an agreed consideration of Rs.51,30,000.

According to complainants, as against the agreed consideration, complainants paid to the opposite party a total amount of Rs.7,85,500/- by way of part-consideration but the project was not completed, and they were not given refund money.

Even after repeated pleas when SPCL didn’t refund the amount, the complainants moved the consumer forum. The SPCL didn’t appear even after the forum had sent them notices. Hence,ex-parte order was passed.

“On perusal of letter dated 05/07/2014 issued by opposite parties to complainants, it is evident that pursuant to order dated 04/06/2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, opposite parties have initiated the process of selling the project land, which is subject matter of present consumer dispute, to another real estate company, whose name was not disclosed. In the said letter, opposite parties had given an option to the complainants to withdraw from the project and to opt for interest on paid amount.

Accordingly, in the present case, complainants had exercised the option to withdraw and to opt for interest on paid amount. However, opposite parties neither completed the project nor refunded the amount received to the complainants. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is ‘deficiency’ as contemplated under Section-2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the part of opposite parties while rendering housing construction service to the complainants. Complainants have claimed refund of amount paid.

[amazon_link asins=’8192910911,0062641549,9351772071′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’policenama100-21′ marketplace=’IN’ link_id=’95b0ad71-a141-11e8-b1e9-6db89bda5800′]

Amount was paid by the complainants to the opposite parties towards part consideration and it was not a gratuitous act on the part of the complainants. Opposite parties are reaping the benefits thereof and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section-70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, opposite parties are lawfully bound to refund to the complainants the amount received from the complainants towards part consideration.

In the present case, there is breach of contract on the part of the opposite parties”, states the judgement of consumer forum president Y D Shinde and member Kshitija Kulkarni.