JUSTICE MS DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The present complaint is being filed on behalf of 11 members who had booked/ purchased their apartments in single name or jointly with the opposite party in the project called Unihomes – 3, Sector 113, Noida, Uttar Pradesh for their personal use. The said project was launched in the year 2010 by the opposite party with the assurance that the apartments will be handed over to the respective complainants within 30-36 months from the date of signing of the buyer’s agreement. 2. The members of the complainant - Association have individually applied for different apartments in the said project and were allotted apartment/ unit at different floors of the towers. The details of the allotted apartment, booking date, agreement date, total consideration, total payments made and interest claimed @ 18% at quarterly rest from the date of respective payments is given in Annexure C/4 of the complaint. The members of the complainant have already deposited Rs.2,43,73,567/- (40% to 90 % of the total consideration) towards the demands raised by the opposite party from time to time. It is the case of the complainant that after the expiry of the stipulated period, the possession of the apartment has not yet been delivered till date. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint on behalf of their members with the prayer for refund of Rs.2,43,73,567/- along with interest @ 18% compounded interest at quarterly rest from the date of first payment made till realisation of the said amount; further Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the members as damages for mental agony and Rs. 55,000/- to each of the members towards the cost of litigation. 3. The opposite party was has filed their written statement, they have not disputed the deposit of the amount of Rs.2,43,73,567/- and it is also not disputed that they could not hand over the possession of the flat within the stipulated period. The complainant has filed their rejoinder but has not filed their affidavit evidence. Counsel for the complainant states that he confines his prayer only to the refund of the amount which was undisputed by the opposite party. In view of this there is no requirement to lead any evidence by the parties. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this Commission in Consumer Case no. 1141 of 2017 – Indar Dhawan & Anr. vs M/s Unitech Limited (Habitat) decided on 17th April 2018, allowed the complaint and directed for refund of the paid amount with interest @ 10% per annum and prays for no other relief. 5. From the facts on record it is apparent that the opposite party has failed to hand over the possession of the flat within the stipulated period. Complainant has confined the relief only to refund of the deposited amount. In view of the earlier stand of this Commission in Consumer Case no. 1141 of 2017 – Indar Dhawan & Anr (Supra), I allow the present consumer complaint with the following directions: The opposite party shall refund the entire amount of Rs.2,43,73,567/- so paid by the members of the complainant within six weeks from today along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of payment of respective amount till the realisation of the amount. The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
6s. With these directions the present consumer complaint stands disposed of. |
