Delhi

StateCommission

CC/294/2015

ASHOK SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :05.11.2019

Date of Decision : 08.11.2019

COMPLAINT NO.294/2015

In the matter of:

 

Ashok Sharma,

Flat No.22, Khan Market,

New Delhi-110003.………Complainants

Versus

 

M/s. Unitech Ltd.,

6 Community Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.

Through its Director/ Managing Director

 

Also at:-

 

M/s. Unitech Ltd.,

UGCC Pavillion,

Sector-96, Expressway,

•  

Through its Manager.……..Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The case of the complainant is that on 13.06.06 he applied for allotment of apartment in “Unitech Habitat” to be developed on Plot no.9, Sector Pi-II (Alistonia Estate) in Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. He paid booking amount of Rs.6 lakhs vide receipt dated 14.06.14. OP promised to allot apartment no.903, HBTN Tower-10 with super area 194.7248 sq. mtr. Agreement was entered into. OP promised to deliver possession within 36 months of signing the acceptance  dated 18.11.06. During the  said period complainant paid different amounts mentioned in para-6 of the complaint. He has paid Rs.65,32,602/-. He  was to pay final amount to Rs.6,84,192/- on notice of possession, thus making the total consideration as Rs.72,16,184/- including interest charged by OP.
2. Complainant did not get possession though there was delay  of more than 5.5 years  as on date of filing of complaint. OP is liable to pay penalty as mentioned in clause-4 (c) (ii) of intimation letter @5/- per month per sq. ft. of super area. The complainant was liable to pay interest @18% p.a. compounded quarterly. On 04.04.15 he sent a legal demand notice. Hence this complaint for directing OP to issue notice of possession, to pass interim order to maintain status quo, compensation of Rs.15 lakhs towards mental agony and torture, fraudulent practices and deceiving complainant, to pay / adjust penalty amount of Rs.6,91,680/-, Rs.1 lakh as litigation expenses.
3. OP filed reply making preliminary submissions that complaint is gross abuse of process of law. Clause-4 (a) (i) of the agreement provided that possession was proposed to be delivered within 36 months subject to force majeure  circumstances. Clause 8 (b)  defines force majeure as delay because of any notice or order of government, including slow down strike, civil commotion or by reasons of war, enmity or terriest action or an act of god, delay in grant of completion/ possession certificate by the government and / or any other public or competent authority. Caluse-4 (e) provided refund with simple interest @10% p.a. The complainant is bound by the terms of agreement. Noida authority acquired land. Farmers went of strike for  increase of compensation and demanded developed plot in lieu of acquired land. High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 21.10.11 in writ C no.37443/2011 titled as Gaj Raj Singh vs. State of UP restrained Noida/ Greater Noida Authority and allot (developers) not to carry out development and not to implement Master Plan 2021. Various restraint order were passed by NGT regarding ground water extraction for construction purpose. The complaint is barred by limitation. On merits the OP repeated the same defence.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand the OP has filed affidavit of Shri Anshu Adarsh, AR.
5. The complainant has filed written arguments. OP has also filed written arguments.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Booking by the complainant is not in dispute. OP was to complete possession till 2019 and the same is not complete till 2019 even. Thus there is no possibility of directing OP to hand over possession. The only option left is to order refund. The OP is directed to refund Rs.65,32,602/- with interest at the agreed rate of 10% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of refund.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•