Delhi

StateCommission

CC/374/2014

SUNIL PRABHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 05.03.2019

Date of Decision : 08.03.2019

COMPLAINT NO.374/2014

In the matter of:

 

Sunil Prabhu,

Flat No.3, Plot No.52,

Vishwa Building,

Sion Main Road,

Sion (West),

1.  

 

Versus

 

Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt.Ltd.,

(Unitech Habitate Project),

6 Community Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.……..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 he booked one unit in project named Unitech Verve, Plot No.11, Sector-Pi-II,  Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. for Rs.64,93,336/-. He paid Rs.6,00,000/- vide receipt no.193 & 194 dated 01.01.07 for unit no.702.
2. The OP was to provide possession of the apartment within 36 months from the date of signing agreement which is dated 08.02.07. The complainant arranged finance of Rs.28,00,000/- through Bajaj Finance Ltd. vide tripartite agreement. He paid different amounts mentioned in para 9 of the  complaint. Hence he prayed for directing the OP to hand over possession of the property and pay interest @18% per annum compounded quarterly for the period of default in handing over possession. He had also sought compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for loss of enjoyment of possession, mental agony and harassment, Rs.1 lakh as cost of litigation.
3. OP put in appearance through its counsel Shri Rohit Kumar Aggarwal on 25.08.15 and accepted notice. Copy of complaint was supplied. It was directed to file WS within 8 weeks with advance copy to complainant. It failed to do so. Thus right to file WS was closed on 23.02.16.
4. In his evidence the complainant has filed his own affidavit. The affidavit is on the lines of complaint.
5. The complainant has filed written arguments in which he has relied upon decision of National Commission in CC No.282/12 titled as Dewan Ashwani vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.05.15. In the said case the National Commission directed the OP to refund the amount with interest @18% per annum and Rs.1 lakh as compensation for harassment and mental agony. Complainant has relied upon decision of National Commission in CC NO.347/14 titled as Swaran Talwar vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 14.08.15 in which National Commission directed refund of the amount with interest @18% per annum inclusive of compensation.
6. During arguments counsel for complainant submitted that now after 10 years. Complainant is not interest in possession. Complainant wants refund.
7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The cases cited by complainant were decided long back. After that there has been a steep fall in the rate of interest. In the present scenario it would be just an equitable to allow interest @10% per annum which is mentioned in clause 4.E of the agreement also. Accordingly the OP is directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with interest @10% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Order to be complied within two months from receipt of copy of the order.
8. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
9. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                 

     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)