Delhi

StateCommission

CC/951/2017

TUSHAR BATRA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SUSHIL KAUSHIK

18 Apr 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 18.04.2018

Date of Decision : 02.05.2018

COMPLAINT NO.951/2017

 

In the matter of:

 

1.       Shri Tushar Batra,

          S/o. Shri Satyapal Batra,

         

2.       Mrs. Priyanka Batra,

          W/o. Shri Tushar Batra,

 

Both resident of :-

          House No.71, Block-C,

          South City-1, Gurgaon,

          Haryana.                                                               .........Complainants

 

Versus

 

M/s. Unitech Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

6, Community Center, Saket,

New Delhi-110017.

 

Also at:-

 

M/s. Unitech  (Marketing Office),

Signature Tower, Ground Floor,

NH-8, South City-1,

Gurgaon.                                                                             ….....Opposite Party

CORAM

 

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

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

          Initially this complaint was filed in National Commission and registered as no. CC -299/2014. The case of the complaint was that they booked residential apartment in a project “The Residences” in Sector-33, Gurgaon. Apartment no.0403 in Tower-A-4 was allotted for Rs.39,80,760/-. Builder Buyer Agreement dated 01.08.2009 was executed, possession was to be delivered within 30 months from date of agreement i.e. by 01.02.2012. The complainant had paid about 90% of the sale consideration i.e Rs.37,93,727/-. Possession has not been offered, hence complaint for directions to OP to hand over the possession of the flat complete in all respects, execute the necessary documents or in the alternative provide a ready to move in apartment of identical  size in  similar locality or in third alternative  pay a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- to enable the complainant to purchase another house of his own. Prayer for compensation for delay in handing over the possession @5 per sq. fts. per month, pay Rs.25,000/-  per month as rent till grant of possession, Rs.25,00,000/- as damages for physical, mental torture, agony, discomfort and undue hardships, litigation cost of Rs.1,25,000/- were also made.

          The OP filed WS . It is not necessary to discuss defence as same has been considered by National Commission in connected case of Dushyant Gupta. Matter has been sent to this Commission for limited purpose of determining compensation.

          Vide order dated 26.04.2017 National Commission returned the complaint for being re-filed in this Commission with directions to the parties to appear on 29.05.2017. It was done so as the value of equivalent flat was not relevant for pecuniary jurisdiction. It was directed that similar complaints involving identical question were decided by National Commission vide order dated 31.01.2017 bearing no.CC-198/2015 titled as Dushyant Gupta vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. The parties were given opportunity to lead additional evidence.

          In pursuance of the said directions the matter was taken up on 29.05.2017 on which date neither party appeared. On 13.09.2017 counsel for both the parties appeared and case was fixed for arguments for quantum of compensation. The reasons being that order of return passed by the national Commission shows that complainant had admittedly received physical possession of the flat in April, 2016.

          We have gone through the material on records and heard the arguments. Relief claimed under Sub-clause – A stands fulfilled. As regards  delay in handing over possession, the complainants  have claimed compensation @5 per sq fts for each month which is as per agreement. The area is 1100 sq ft and delay is 50 months. The complainants are entitled to Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation.

          Relief claim under Sub-clause (c) for rent can not be given. Reason being that compensation for delay is   same thing as rent paid by the complainant for alternative accommodation. The complainants can not claim both simultaneously.

          Regarding Sub-clause (d) complainants have prayed for Rs.25,00,000/- as damages for physical, mental torture, agony, discomfort and undue hardships but they did not lead any satisfactory evidence for quantum of damages on said head. The complainants were to get compensation by February, 2012 which they got in April, 2016. We feel that compensation of Rs,4,00,000/- would be appropriate.  Similarly litigation charges of Rs.50,000/- would be enough. The OP is directed to comply with the above order within 45 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.

          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)