NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/713/2015

RAKESH MUNDRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PRAVEEN KAPOOR

19 Apr 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 713 OF 2015
 
1. RAKESH MUNDRA
X-305, SIDDHARTHA APARTMENTS, M.P. ENCLAVE, PITAM PURA,
DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS.
(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR), BASEMENT, 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017
2. M/S. CIG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT, LTD.
(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR) C-41, MAY FAIR GARDEN,
NEW DELHI-110016
3. M/S. UNITECH ACASIA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
(THROUGH ITS DIRTECTOR) BASEMENT, 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Praveen Kapoor , Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Advocate

Dated : 19 Apr 2018
ORDER

This consumer complaint has been filed by Rakesh Mundra against the opposite parties M/s. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd. & Ors.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2009, complainant booked a plot with the opposite parties and paid Rs.12,69,554/- vide cheque No.000286.  The opposite parties allotted the plot No.0003 main 00 Street 06 in “The Willows” at Unitech Grande” to complainant.  The complainant further paid different sums as per the payment plan. The total amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party became Rs.1,25,39,641/- against  the total consideration amount of Rs.1,38,88,018/- i.e. 90% of the total cost of plot was paid.  On 23.03.2015, complainant sent a letter to the respondent and requested to arrange a meeting with some senior officer/director to ascertain the facts.  Despite receipt of letter, opposite party failed to reply the same.  On 19.06.2015, complainant sent a reminder but no reply has been received.  Till date neither the opposite parties have allotted the plot to the complainant nor have responded to the letters of the complainant. 

3.      Hence the present complaint. 

4.      The complaint was resisted by filing the written statement.  It has been stated therein that the delay has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties.  Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

5.      Heard both the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the complainant mentioned the same facts as mentioned in the brief facts given above and stated that the opposite parties have not handed over the plot to the complainant and therefore, direction be issued  to the opposite parties to handover the plot within a specified period or to refund the amount as per the market price.  Learned counsel further stated that as against total consideration of Rs.1,38,88,018/-, the complainant has already paid Rs.1,25,39,641/- by 14.07.2012.  However, still the complainant is not sure of getting the plot.  Accordingly, the request has also been made in the alternative for refund along with appropriate compensation.  Learned counsel further stated that there is no possibility of getting the plot in near future and therefore, now the request of the complainant is to get the refund along with 18% p.a. interest.

6.      On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that the opposite parties are ready to refund the amount along with 8% p.a. interest as ordered by this Commission in CC No.148 of 2015, Gaurav Chhabra Vs. M/s. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., decided on 02.11.2016.  Learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that there have been several problems with the project and the opposite parties were restrained from developing these plots due to orders of Hon’ble High Court as well as of the Green Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances mentioned in the written statement, learned counsel stated that the refund may be ordered in the present case.

7.      I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and have examined the material on record.  As both the parties only want refund, therefore, the refund is only being considered.  The judgment of this Commission in Gaurav Chhabra Vs. M/s. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable to the present case as in CC No.148 of 2015, Gaurav Chhabra Vs. M/s. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., interest of 8% has been awarded on the deposited amount when the possession was being handed over by the opposite parties.  Here the possession is not being handed over and the total amount is to be refunded.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65  has observed that uniform interest cannot be ordered in all the cases and a person who has not been given possession and only money is being refunded, deserves a higher compensation by way of interest as compared to a person who is getting possession with delay.  Accordingly, the complaint is disposed off with the following directions:-

(i)      The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant, which is Rs.1,25,39,641/- along with 11.5% p.a. interest from the date of respective payments till actual refund. The refund should be made within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, the opposite parties would be liable to pay additional interest @3% p.a. from the date of this order till actual refund.

(ii)      The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

 
......................
PREM NARAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.