Mrs Usha Srivastaava v. Sahara Prime City Ltd, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CC/381/2017

Attorney(S)

Atul kirti

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Facts:

The case revolves around the interpretation of services rendered by development authorities in the context of housing construction and allotment. The appellant, Mrs. Usha Srivastava, contended that the actions of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and other respondents constituted a service under the relevant legal framework.

Issue:

The primary legal question addressed was whether the construction of buildings or the allotment of houses or building sites by a development authority qualifies as a "service" under Section 2(o) of the applicable Act. Furthermore, the court left open the question of whether a contract for the sale of a house (which includes a constructed house on a site) constitutes the provision of a service to potential users.

Holding:

The Supreme Court held that the activities undertaken by development authorities, such as constructing buildings or allotting houses or building sites, do indeed amount to rendering a service. This interpretation aligns with the definition of "service made available to potential users" as outlined in Section 2(o) of the Act.

Reasoning:

The Court acknowledged that while there is a logical basis for the contention of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) regarding the distinction between a contract for sale of a house and a contract for construction, it chose not to delve into this specific issue. The Court decided to allow the appeal on other grounds, indicating that the matter of whether a sale of a house constitutes a service was not sufficiently pressed before the commission and therefore remains unresolved.

Conclusion:

The Court's ruling affirms the classification of housing construction and allotment as services under the law. However, it refrains from making a definitive ruling on the nature of contracts for the sale of constructed houses, leaving that question open for future adjudication in an appropriate case.

Significance:

This case highlights the evolving interpretation of what constitutes a service in the realm of real estate and development, paving the way for further legal scrutiny and clarification in similar disputes.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Mrs Usha Srivastaava v. Sahara Prime City Ltd

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP

C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. CC/381/2017

( Date of Filing : 14 Sep 2017 )

1. Mrs Usha Srivastaava W/O Sri S.K. Srivastava R/O Flat Number 8036 Sector B Pocket XI VAsant Kunj New Delhi 110070 ...........Complainant(s) Versus

1. Sahara Prime City Ltd Through its( CEO and Directors) Having its Regd. Office at Sahara India Centre 2 Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj Lucknow 226024 U.P. ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT For the Complainant:

For the Opp. Party:

Dated : 31 May 2019

Final Order / Judgement

()

, 00

: 381/2017 Mrs. Usha Srivastava W/o S.K. Srivastava, R/o Flat No. 8036, Sector-B, Pocket-XI, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

.....

Sahara Prime City Limited (Through its CEO & Directors) Having its Regd. Office At Sahara India Centre, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Also At : Sahara City Homes,6 Lane, Ring Road, Near IIM, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh-226013.

Mr. Bijender Regional Field Manager, Sahara India, 2387B, Main Road, Narela, Delhi-110040.

.1.

1- 0 ,

- - : 12-07-2019

0 ,

Mrs. Usha Srivastava Sahara Prime City Limited (Through its CEO & Directors) Having its Regd. Office At Sahara India Centre, 2, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, Uttar Pradesh, India. Also At : Sahara City Homes,6 Lane, Ring Road, Near IIM, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh-226013 Mr. Bijender Regional Field Manager, Sahara India, 2387B, Main Road, Narela, Delhi-110040. -17 :-

Direct the Respondent (S) to refund the payments of Rs. 33,21,506/- made to the Respondent(S) by the Complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum with quarterly rests, from the date of payments till date of actual payment; a.

Direct the Respondent (s) to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the Complainant towards undue hardship and injury, both physical and mental, caused due to the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent(s);

Direct the Respondent(s) to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lacs to the Complainant towards the cost of the litigation;

Pass suce order or further order as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

-1 -2

: 21-10-2008 12-11-2008 - B30/806 Type 2 Bedrooms Eight Floor 88.73 Sq.mt. 0 24,59,000/- 06-04- 2009 06-04-2009 38 , 38 , , ,

0 24,59,000/- 33,21,506/- -2 -2 -2 :

-2

: -2 , , -2 - 19-01-2017 0 33,21,506/-

0 -9813/2011 S.E.B.I. Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. :

Mrs. Usha Srivastava

(2007) 6 S.C.C. -714 , , 0 0 (1994) S.C.C.-243

"It appears that this contention was not pressed before the Commission nor raised as a specific ground in the special leave petition,in view of the decision of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K Gupta .. Gupta. In that case a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that where a development authority undertakes to construct buildings or allot houses or building sltes either as

amenity or as benefit, it amounts to rendering of a service and will be covered by the exression "Service made available to optential users" referred to in Section 2(o) of the Act. But this Court did not examine or deal with the question whether a contract for sale of a house premises (that is site with a constructed house), as contrasted from a contract of construction amounted to "providing aservice of any description to a potenrial user including housing construction". Be that as it may thourhg there appears to be some logic in the contention of BDA, we do not propose to decide the essue, as we are allowing this apeal on other grounds, and as this contention was not spccifically pressed before the commission, We leeve this question open for decision in an appropriate case."

: 0 0 :

-701 2015 EMAAR Mef Land Ltd. 13-07-2017 06-04-2009

- - 06-04-2009 V -42 -66

VI 19-01-2017

Receipt No. 196408306146 dated 30-09-2008 amount Rs. 17824.1.

Receipt No.196409311580 dated 10-11-2009 amount Rs. 116120.2.

Receipt No.196409311581 dated 10-11-2009 amount Rs. 58060.3.

Receipt No. 196411309407 dated 15-09-2011 amount Rs. 58060.4. :-

1- -196410316213, 15-09-2010 5,000/-0 2- -196416015601 30-06-2016 541382/- 0 5,41,736/-0

33,21,506/- -9813/2011 .... 0 :

06-04-2009

: ,

(2004) S.C.C. 65 III (2016)C.P.J. 16 S.C, 0 0 18 :

10,000/- 18 10,000/-

-9813/2011 S.E.B.I. 0

( )

0-1 , 0 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN]

PRESIDENT

Mrs Usha Srivastaava v. Sahara Prime City Ltd

Facts:

Issue:

Holding:

Reasoning:

Conclusion:

Significance:

Mrs Usha Srivastaava v. Sahara Prime City Ltd

Comments