Haryana

StateCommission

CC/571/2017

HARPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LIMITED REAL ESTATE DIVISION - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     571 of 2017

                                      Date of Institution                  14.09.2017

                                       Date of Decision                             12.12.2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.      Harpreet Singh son of late Sh. Balbir Singh, aged about 39 years

 

2.      Paramjeet Kaur wd/o late Sh. Balbir Singh

          Both residents of House No.547, Sonia Colony, Ambala City

                                      Complainants

Versus

 

1.      M/s Unitech Limited, Real Estate Division (Marketing), 5^th Floor, Signature Towers, South City-1, NH-8, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Incharge Office of Unitech Limited, Unihomes Sector 16, Ambala City, Haryana.

Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Manjula, Member.

                  

                                                                                                               

 

Argued by:          Shri Harpreet Singh, complainant in person

                             Ms. Vertika H Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Consumer Act’) has been filed by Harpreet Singh and his mother Paramjeet Kaur-complainants averring that on 26.01.2012 they booked a Unit with Unitech Limited-opposite parties (for short ‘Developer’). The basic sale price of the Unit was Rs.20,00,000/-. They were allotted Unit No.0134, Block B, Floor GF, Unihomes, Sector 16, Ambala. Buyers Agreement dated 26.03.2012 was executed between the parties.  As per Article 4.a.i) of the agreement, the Developer proposed to offer possession of the Apartment within a period of 24 months from the date of signing of the agreement, that is, on or before 26.03.2014. In all, the complainants paid Rs.10,05,432/- to the Developer. The construction has not been started by the Developer. The complainants prayed that the Developer be directed to handover the possession of the apartment or to refund the deposited amount, that is, Rs.10,05,432/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2.      The opposite parties, in its written version, resisted the complaint on various grounds, including its maintainability. The developer in preliminary objections averred that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try/adjudicate the complaint because the complainants are not “Consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Act, as the apartment in question has been booked for resale/commercial purpose. The overall recession and financial problems, which were not foreseen, contributed to the delay in the completion of the project. The complainants cannot seek refund of the deposited amount.   

3.      The complainant Harpreet Singh in his evidence appeared as CW1 and produced the following documents:-

1.	Certified copy of order dated 06.09.2017	Exhibit C-1
2.	Buyer’s Agreement	Exhibit C-2
3.	Allotment Letter dated 07.02.2012	Exhibit C-3
4.	Payment Schedule	Exhibit C-4
5.	Demand Letter	Exhibit C-5
6.	Receipt dated 07.02.2012	Exhibit C-6
7.	Photocopy of cancelled cheque bearing No.0093235 dated 23.03.2012	Exhibit C-7
8.	Photocopy of passbook	Exhibit C-8
9.	Photocopy of the entries entered in the passbook	Exhibit C-9
10.	Receipt dated 14.05.2012	Exhibit C-10
11.	Demand Letter dated 10.05.2014	Exhibit C-11
12.	Receipt dated 02.06.2014	Exhibit C-12
13.	Legal Notice dated 14.05.2016	Exhibit C-13
14.	Photocopy of postal receipt dated 18.05.2016	Exhibit C-14

 

4.      The developer tendered the affidavit of Lalit Gupta-OPW1, Authorized Representative and produced resolution dated June 19^th, 2015 Exhibit OP-1/1.

5.      It is not in dispute that the complainants booked a Unit with the developer. Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-2) was executed between the parties on 26.03.2012. Unit No.0134, Block B, Floor GF, Unihomes, Sector 16, Ambala was allotted to the complainants. The complainants paid Rs.10,05,432/- to the developer.  As per clause 4 a (i) of the agreement, the possession of the floor was proposed to be delivered within twenty four months of signing the agreement, that is, by 26.03.2014 but the developer failed to do so and it was certainly a case of deficiency in service.  Except for a bald plea in the written version that the Unit had been purchased by the complainants with a view to sell it on premium and make profits, Developer has not said even an additional word in this behalf, leave alone leading evidence to prove the assertion.  Lalit Gupta-OPW1 has admitted that there is no construction at the site.  Clause 4.e ‘Inability to offer Floor’ of the Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-2) reproduced as under:-

          “That if for any reason whatsoever, the Developer is unable to offer the allotted floor to the purchaser(s), as agreed herein, the Developer will offer the Purchaser(s) an alternative property in any complex developed, underdevelopment or proposed to be develop in the surrounding area/projects and if no alternative property is available, the Developer will refund the amount paid by the Purchaser(s) in full with interest @ 10% per annum from  the date of payment(s) by the Purchaser(s).  The Developers shall not in the event of such an eventuality be liable to pay any other damages, charges or compensation.”

6.      A reading of the aforesaid clause shows that if for any reason the developer is not in a position to offer the allotted apartment, developer would offer an alternative property or to refund the amount paid by the allottee in full with 10% interest per annum.  The developer neither offered alternative property nor refund the deposited amount.

7.      In view of above, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.10,05,432/- to the complainants, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the developer within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the developer fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.              

 

Announced 12.12.2018

(Manjula) Member

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

U.K