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

          The complainant Deepika Sapra booked a residential villa with the OP in a project namely ‘Alder Grove’ Nirvana Country-2 which the OP was to construct in Gurgaon.  Vide allotment letter dated 05.08.2010, house no. AG-0143 in the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.2,16,75,961/-.  The parties then executed a buyers agreement dated 16.08.2010 incorporating their respective obligations, in respect of the aforesaid transaction.  In terms of clause 4(a)(i) of the said agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 24 months of its execution.  The possession therefore, ought to have been delivered by 16.08.2012.  The grievance of the complainant is that a possession was not offered to her at any point of time despite she having already paid Rs.86,70,384/- to the OP.  The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith compensation etc. 

2.      The OP did not file its written version despite service and therefore, its right to file the said written version was closed vide order dated 30.01.2017.  I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the complainant.

3.      The learned counsel for the complainant submits that though no written version has been filed in this consumer complaint, some other consumer complaints resisting the complainants seeking possession of the villas in this very project have already been allowed by this Commission after rejecting the grounds on which the said complaints were resisted.  A reference in this regard is made to Aditya Mishra & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. CC No. 382 of 2015 and connected matters decided on 03.05.2016, Ved Prakash Saini Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. CC No. 197 of 2015 decided on 22.09.2016 and CC No. 1530 of 2016 Madhu Garg Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided on 11.10.2017. 

4.      The learned counsel for the complainant also states on instructions that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, the complainant is restricting her claim to the refund of the entire principal amount alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per Annum in terms of clause 4(e) reads as under:

“4.e. Inability to offer villa:

That if for any reason the whatsoever the Developer is unable to offer the aforesaid villa to the purchaser, as agreed herein, the developer may offer the purchaser(s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with simple interest @ 10% per annum.  The developer shall not in such an eventuality be liable to pay any other charge or compensation.

          The learned counsel for the complainant submits that though the principal amount paid by the complainant to the OP was Rs.86,70,384/-, the complainant has also paid service taxes and interest thereby bringing the total sum paid by the complainant to the OP to Rs.89,47,238/-.  A reference in this regard is made to the statement of account Annexure-B available at page no. 38 of the paper-book which shows the total amount paid by the complainant to be Rs.89,47,238/-.

4.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:

          (i)      The OP shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.89,47,238/-  to the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the date of each payment till the date of full refund. 

          (ii)      The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

          (iii)     The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.