JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, (ORAL)

The complainant before this Commission is stated to be a Recognized Consumer Association in terms of Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was registered under Societies Registration Act on 22.1.2016. The aims and objectives of the complainant as per its amended bye-laws which are stated to have been amended on 2.2.2016 include the following:-

          1. To redress/elevate problems faced by residential persons/flat owners/buyers of “Unitech The Residences, Sector-117 Noida” or other unitech flat owners/buyers.

2.       To help consumers who are flat buyers in the housing project “Unitech The Residences, Sector – 117 Noida” against the earing actions, malafide conduct of builder “M/s Unitech Ltd.”

3.       To file and pursue complaints before any/all consumer forums/courts/commissions in relation to any actions of deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practices and/or restrictive trade practices and/or restrictive trade practices on the part of builder “M/s Unitech Limited” for/on behalf of consumers who are buyers of houses in the housing project “Unitech the Residences, Sector-117 Noida” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.”

          It is evident from a perusal of the above-referred aims and objectives that the complainant fulfils the requirements of a Recognized Consumer Association as laid down by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in  Consumer Complaint No.560 of 2014 Moulivakkam Trust Heights Flats Affected Buyers Association Vs. M/s Prime Sristi Housing Pvt. Ltd. & 29 Ors. dated 5.5.2017.

2.      This complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of as many as 35 persons who were allotted residential flats by the opposite party in a project, namely, “the Residencies” which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 117 of Noida in Uttar Pradesh. The buyers on whose behalf this complaint has been instituted, hereinafter referred as the “flat buyers” were to be delivered possession of the flats booked by them on different dates between 17.3.2014 to 20.5.2017. Their grievance is that despite they having paid the substantial amount to the opposite party, there has been no worthwhile construction of the flats allotted to them. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by the aforesaid 35 flat buyers to the opposite party along with compensation etc.

3.      Following are the particulars of the allotments made to the consumers on whose behalf this complaint is instituted:-

4.      The opposite party did not file its written version despite service by post on 6.8.2018 and Dasti service on 27.9.2018. The right of the opposite party to file its written version therefore was closed vide order dated 7.12.2018.

5.      The learned counsel for the complainant states that they have filed individual affidavits of all the flat buyers on whose behalf this complaint is instituted.

6.      Clause 5.A(i) of the terms and conditions of the allotment issued to Rashi Srivastava/Rachit Seth reads as under:-

“The possession of Apartment is expected to be delivered by the Developer within 36 months hereof subject to Force Majeure circumstances (as mentioned herein) or the circumstances beyond the control of the Developer and upon registration of Sub Lease Deed provided thta all amounts due and payable by the Allottee(s) have been paid to the Developer. It is, however, understood between the Parties that various Blocks/Towers/amenities/structures comprised in the Complex/Township shall be ready and completed in phases.”

7.      The learned counsel for the complainant states that identical terms were contained in the allotment letters issued to the other consumes on whose behalf this complaint has been instituted.

8.      The learned counsel for the complainant states that though no written version has been filed in this complaint, several other complaints pertaining to allotments made in this very project have already been allowed by this Commission after rejecting the grounds on which the said complaints were contested.

9.      Clause 5 (D) of the terms and conditions of allotment reads as under:-

“If for any reason the Developer is not in a position to offer the allotted Apartment, the Developer shall offer the Allottee(s) an alternative property or refund the amount paid by the Allottee(s) with Simple Interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or compensation of any kind whatsoever.”

10.    The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions from some of the flat buyers, namely, Vinod Ahlawat, Sunil Sibel and Kuldeep Rajdan present in the Court that all the flat buyers through the complainant are restricting their claim to the refund of the principal amount paid by them to the opposite party along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund. The flat buyers present in the Court states that all the buyers on whose behalf this complaint has been instituted, have resolved to press the claim only to the extent of refund of the principal amount paid by them to the opposite party along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund.

11.    The complaint is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:-

1. The opposite party shall refund the entire amount received by it from 35 flat buyers whose particulars are extracted hereinabove to them, along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of refund.

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

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