Delhi

StateCommission

CC/838/2016

SIDDHARTH NARULA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SHARAD CHANDRA

16 Nov 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :16.11.2018

Date of Decision : 05.12.2018

COMPLAINT NO.838 /2016

In the matter of:

 

1. Shri Siddharth Narula

S/o. Shri K.L. Narula,

R/o. FA-214, 2^nd Floor,

Tagore Garden,

New Delhi-110027.

 

2. Smt. Priyanka Chandra

W/o. Shri Siddhartj Narula,

R/o. FA-214, 2^nd Floor,

Tagore Garden,

New Delhi-110027.                                             …..Complainants

                                                Versus                                   

 

M/s. Unitech Ltd.,

Regd. Office at 6 Community Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.                                     …….Opposite Party

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

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

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

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The complainants are  husband and wife. Their case is that they were allotted a flat in OPs Group Housing Complex “Unihomes 3” vide letter dated 07.01.12. They were supposed to pay Rs.30,47,544/- toward consideration of the apartment which was inclusive of basic price preferential location charges, lease rent and charges for use of car parking space. Possession  was to be offered within 30 months which concluded on 06.07.14. Complainants had been  regularly visiting  the site and found that no construction was made, structure found was ruing  with rusting iron rods/ bars  with no workmen found at the spot. They have paid Rs.22,51,772/- to the date of filing complaint. They sent legal notice dated 18.05.16 which was not replied. Hence this complaint for directing the OP to hand over possession and executing necessary documents,  direct the OP to pay interest @18% per annum on the amount deposited by them, declare that increase in service tax to be born by OP. Alternatively they have prayed for paying back the entire amount with interest@18% per annum and Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and cost of litigation
2. OP was served and put in appearance on 16.02.17 . Copy of complaint was supplied. It failed to file the WS  within statutory period. Its right to file WS was closed on 18.08.17.
3. The complainants have  filed affidavit of complainant no.1 in evidence. They have also filed written arguments. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. During arguments counsel for the complainant confined his prayer to the alternative relief i.e. refund of the amount.
4.  There is no  reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted statement of complainant. However they are not entitled to interest @18% per annum as claimed by  them. In the present scenario it would be proper to award interest @9% per annum. Accordingly the OP is directed to refund Rs.22,51,772/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. P
5. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                  

  MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)