Delhi

StateCommission

CC/505/2016

MRS. MAMTA UPADHYAY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

TARUN KR. TIWARI

12 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :12.07.2019

Date of order :17.07.2019

COMPLAINT NO.505/2016

In the matter of:

 

1. Mrs. Mamta Upadhyay

W/o. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Upadhyay

 

2. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Upadhyay,

S/o. Late D.P. Upadhyay,

Both resident of :

Flat No.1201, Plot No.GH-11,

Aviation Heigh (Infront of Tau Devilal

Biodiversity Park),

Sector-52, Gurgaon,

•  

 

Versus

 

M/s. Unitech Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

Having their registered office at:

6 Communcity Center, Saket,

New Delhi-110017.

 

Also to be served at corporate office:

M/s. Unitech Ltd.,

P-7, Sector-18,

Noida-201301 (UP).……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 complainants who are wife and husband is that they are joint allottee  of apartment no.1502 on 14^th Floor of Tower-3 of super area 1537 sq.ft. in project named “Unitech Cascades”  Plot No.08, Sector-Pi-II (Alistonia Estate) Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. The said apartment was earlier booked by Mr. Ajay Upadhyay, brother of complainant no.2 in the year 2006 and wife of Shri Ajay Upadhyay. They had already paid total sale consideration except last instalment of flat which was received by the OP in November, 2008. The total sale consideration was Rs.37,80,394/-. The amount payable before final notice of possession was Rs.36,16,713/-. Possession was to be given by 30.04.08 except for force majeure in case of delay of payment complainant was liable to pay interest @18% per annum to the OP.
2. The original allottee stopped paying amount  after 4^th instalment, after knowing that construction had not even started after two years i.e. in September, 2008. OP assured that they would complete the project up to March, 2009 and possession would be offered in April, 2009. He paid Rs.3,79,941/- on account of interest. The transfer in the name of complainant took place vide application dated 05.12.08. The OP not only failed to give possession but had not constructed the apartment even after long delay of ten years. Terms contained in clause 2 C of the allotment letter regarding delayed payment is one sided, almost unilateral. Payment of compensation @5 per sq. ft. to the buyer is totally unreasonable. Hence this complaint for directing OP to complete and deliver possession within three months, to pay interest  on total amount of Rs.36,16,713/- w.e.f stipulated date of possession i.e. 30.04.08 @18% per annum. They have prayed for  compensation of Rs.14,49,450/- on account of loss of actual rent paid by them and Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. OP was served for 08.12.16 and put in appearance through its AR Ms. Shruti Mala Das. Copy of complaint was supplied to her and she was directed to file WS within 30 days. Op failed to do so and its right to file WS was closed vide order dated 17.10.17.
4. In their evidence the complainants have filed affidavit of both the complainants.
5. Complainants have not filed any written arguments. Rather OP has filed written arguments dated 12.07.19 which can not be considered in the absence of WS.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments advanced by counsel  for the complainant. He relied upon decision of NC in CC No.1523/16 titled as Punit Singla vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 02.01.19 in which OP was directed to refund the principal amount alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @10.75% per annum. In CC No.2171/17 vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 07.09.11 the OP was directed to the refund entire principal amount with simple interest @10% per annum.
7. The complainants have also relied upon decision in Shalini Lambha vs. Unitech Ltd. IV (2017) CPJ 253 NC where OP were found liable to pay 10% interest per annum on deposited amount as compensation for its default. In G.S. Kapoor vs. Unitech Ltd. I (2017) CPJ 222 NC it was held that OP was  liable to refund amount with simple interest @12% per annum.
8. From the material on record I am convinced that OP was deficit in service. It did not complete the flat for ten years. It is directed to refund the amount deposit by the complainants / their predecessor with interest @10% per annum from stipulated date of possession i.e. 30.04.08 till date of refund. Order be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. File be consigned to record room.

                                        

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)