JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant and her husband booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely “Unitech Cascades” which the opposite party was to develop on plot No.8, Sector Pi-II, Sector 52 in Greater Noida.  Vide allotment letter dated 25.10.2005, Apartment No. 1803 in Tower No. 02, 17^th floor of the aforesaid project was allotted to them for a consideration of Rs.68,45,629/-.  As per Clause 4(a)(i) of the terms and conditions of allotment, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered to them by 30.4.2008.  The name of the husband of the complainant was later deleted as a co-allottee vide letter of the opposite party dated 13.8.2013, addressed to the complainant as well as to her husband.  As a result, the complainant became the sole allottee of the aforesaid apartment.  The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the apartment has not been even been offered to her, despite she having already paid Rs.65,49,876/- to the opposite party.  The complainant is therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount. 

2.      The opposite party did file its written version but did not pay the cost subject to which the delay in filing the said written version had been condoned by this Commission vide its order dated 13.3.2018.  The written version filed by the opposite party therefore was rejected vide order dated 14.8.2018.

3.      I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the affidavit filed by the complainant by way of evidence as well as the documents filed by her.  No-one is present for the opposite parties when the matter is called.

4.      The documents filed by the complainant , along with her affidavit by way of evidence prove the allotment made initially to her and her husband as also the terms and conditions of allotment.  The said documents and affidavit also prove the payment made to the opposite party in respect of the apartment, subject matter of this complaint. Since possession of the flat has not even been offered to the complainant, she is entitled to seek refund of the entire principal amount paid by ber along with compensation. 

5.      In CC No. 60 of 2016, Surender Chauhan & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr. decided on 10.02.2017, the complainants had booked a residential flat with the OP in this very project namely ‘Unitech Cascades’.  Since the OP failed to deliver possession of the said flat, they approached this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by them with compensation.  The complaint was resisted by the OP primarily on the following grounds:

          (i)      There was major disruption in the construction activities due to agitations and Dharans by farmers whose land was acquired by the Noida Authority and the said agitations had resulted in slackening of the availability and the supply of raw-material.

(ii)      Vide Notification dated 14.9.2016 issued by Ministry of environment and Forest (MOEF), Central Govt. imposed certain restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities based on their potential environmental impact unless prior environmental clearances were obtained. The procedure for obtaining the approvals and sanctions  led to delay in the construction schedule.

(iii)     There was acute shortage of labour, water and other raw-material.

(iv)    Writ Petitions were filed by the farmers before the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquisition of land by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(v)    Some of the towers in this project have already been constructed whereas construction is going on in the remaining towers. As regards Tower-2 in which flat allotted to the complainants was to be located, it is alleged that external and internal plaster are going on in the said tower.

          It was also alleged that in view of clause 4.c of the terms and conditions of allotment in the event of delay, the allottees entitled only to the agreed compensation of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. of the super area per month.

          All the aforesaid contentions were rejected by this Commission and the OP was directed to refund the entire principal amount alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum. 

6.      The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that she is restricting her claim to the refund of the entire principal amount paid to the opposite party along with compensation in the form of interest @ 10@ per annum as per clause 4(e) of the terms and conditions, which reads as under:

          “4.e. Default:

If for any reason the Company  is not in a position to offer the Apartment altogether, the Company shall offer the Allottee(s) an alternative property or refund the amount paid in full with Simple Interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation on this account.”