THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Sahara Prime City Ltd to refund Rs 50.54 lakh to a flat buyer who paid for an apartment in 2010 but never received possession.
The complainant, Thrissur native Deepak K S, had booked a two-bedroom apartment with a super built-up area of 1,654.54 sq ft on the first floor of “Sahara Grace” project at Kakkanad, Kochi. The sale agreement was signed on December 20, 2010 and the promised date of handover was March 1, 2013.
The total consideration was Rs 51,25,000 and Deepak paid the near-entire amount, partly as advance and partly through an HDFC bank loan. The last instalment was to be paid at the time of handover.
On December 14, 2013, Sahara issued a notice saying work would be completed only in February 2014. Then on May 21, 2014, the company informed the buyer that a Supreme Court order in a case between Sahara and SEBI had restrained the company from parting with its movable and immovable properties, halting the project.
Sahara argued before the commission that the SC’s prohibitory order amounted to force majeure, an unforeseeable circumstance beyond its control, and denied deficiency in service. The commission rejected this argument outright.
It noted that the Supreme Court’s contempt proceedings were initiated because Sahara itself had violated the apex court’s earlier directions. “Violating the directions of the Apex Court and the consequential initiation of contempt proceedings can never be construed as force majeure,” the commission held.
It directed the company to refund Rs 50,54,714 with interest at 16.65% from the respective dates of remittance until full payment, along with Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.
While the complainant had sought 24 per cent interest, the Commission found the claim on the higher side. It applied Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, under which the applicable rate is the State Bank of India’s benchmark prime lending rate plus 2%.
‘Paid for flat in 2010’
The case was heard by the SCDRC bench comprising judicial member D Ajith Kumar and member K R Radhakrishnan. The complainant, Thrissur native Deepak K S, was represented by Advocate Rahul Venugopal. He had alleged that he paid for an apartment in 2010 but never received possession.