Sahara City, Chandigarh-I Commission Orders Sahara Group To Refund, Pay Compensation, Litigation Costs To Home Buyer

Brief Facts:

Prabha Pandey (“Complainant”) acquired two home units, known as the "subject home units," from the original owners, Harmail Singh and Smt. Gurvinder Kaur within the Sahara City project (owned by Sahara Group) for Rs. ₹1,35,350/- and ₹2,26,050/-, respectively.

Following the purchase of these home units, the complainant initiated the transfer process to have them officially registered in her name. While the first unit, registered in Harmail Singh's name, was successfully transferred, and a certificate was issued, the second unit, registered in Gurvinder Kaur's name, remained un-transferred to the complainant, despite all required documentation being submitted to the Sahara Group. The complainant made repeated requests for this transfer to be executed, but her appeals went unanswered. Additionally, the Sahara Group failed to provide possession of the subject home units to the complainant, and they did not refund the money she had paid to the original owners. Frustrated by this situation, the complainant sent a legal notice to the Sahara Group, but no action was taken by them.

Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (“District Commission”), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of Sahara Group.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the complainant had successfully transferred one of the two home units into her name. Specifically, the unit registered under the name of Harmail Singh had been transferred, and a certificate was duly issued. However, the second unit, initially registered in Gurvinder Kaur's name, had not been transferred to the complainant's name as of the date of the complaint, the District Commission observed. Despite the complainant's repeated requests, the Sahara Group had not taken the necessary steps to initiate this transfer.

Furthermore, it was noted that the construction of the subject home units had not commenced, and possession of these units had not been offered to the complainant. Additionally, there was no evidence to suggest that the Sahara Group had obtained the requisite approvals and clearances from the competent authority for the Sahara City project.

Therefore, the District Commission held that collecting money from prospective buyers without obtaining the required approvals and clearances constituted an unfair trade practice. Moreover, such an indefinite delay in offering possession was considered a deficiency in service.

Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant and directed Sahara to refund ₹1,35,350/- plus ₹.2,26,050/- (totalling ₹3,61,400/-) to the complainant, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date when the complainant applied for the transfer of the second unit on 9.12.2009 onwards. A compensation amount of ₹30,000/- was also awarded to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment she had endured and ₹10,000/- as cost to litigation.

Case Title: Prabha Pandey vs. Sahara Group

Case No.: CC/183/2020

Advocate for the Complainant: J.R. Syal

Advocate for the Respondent: Ishtneet Bhatia

Click HereTo Read The Order