JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) IA/22641/2018 (For C/delay) The delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CC/1225/2017 The right of the OP to file its written version was closed vide order dated 23.2.2018. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant. 2. One Mr. Gurmeet Singh booked a residential plot with the OP – Unitech Ltd. in a project, namely, ‘Uniworld City’ which the OP was to develop in Sector 97 of Mohali. Plot No.0044 in Block-C of the above-referred project was allotted to him for consideration of Rs.7472010/-. The buyer then executed an agreement with the OP on 17.7.2008 incorporating the terms and conditions of the said allotment. As per clause 4.a(i) of the said agreement, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 36 months of its execution, subject of course to force majure circumstances. The possession therefore, ought to have been delivered by 17.7.2011. The aforesaid allotment was later purchased by the complainant and the said allotment was transferred in his name vide letter dated 31.3.2011 available on page 14 of the paper-book. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the allotted plot has not even been offered despite payment of Rs.7218060/- to the OP. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount along with compensation and interest etc. 3. The OP did not file its written version and therefore, its right to file the same was closed vide order dated 23.2.2018. 4. The documents and the affidavit filed by the complainant prove the allotment made by the OP to the predecessor in interest of the complainant, the transfer of the plot allotment in favour of the complainant as well as the payment received by the OP in respect of the allotted plot. Since the possession of the plot has not even been offered to the complainant, he is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid to the OP in respect of the said plot along with compensation etc. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that the complainant is restricting his claim to the refund of the entire principal amount of Rs.7218060/- along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. in terms of clause 4.e. of the buyers agreement which reads as under:- “4.e. If for any reason the Developers are not at all in a position to offer the plot, as agreed herein, the Developers may offer the purchaser(s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation.” 6. The learned counsel for the complainant also states that several other consumer complaints in respect of this very project have already been allowed by this Commission. A reference in this regard is made in Shri Harinder Singh Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. in CC/25/2016 decided on 19.12.2016. 7. The complaint has been opposed by the OP which has admitted the allotment made to the complainant as well as the payment made by him. It has been stated in the written version filed by the OP that though they tried their best to hand over the possession of the plot but the project got delayed on account of reasons and circumstances beyond their control. The following, according to the OP, are the main reasons which resulted in delaying the aforesaid project: (i) There was a slump in the real estate industry. (ii) There was extreme shortage of labour/workers due to Commonwealth Games organized in 2010. (iii) There was shortage of labour on account of schemes like National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). (iv) There was an acute shortage of water in NCR region. (v) Vide notification dated 14.09.1999, Ministry of Environment and Forest had barred excavation of soil for manufacture of bricks. (vi) There was shortage of raw materials such as sand on account of mining operations having been suspended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 08.05.2009. It is also stated in the written version filed by the OP that in case of delay in offering possession, the purchaser is entitled to a penalty compensation of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month of the area of the plot and therefore, the calculation of the compensation cannot exceed the said amount. 8. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the present complaint is squarely covered by the decision of this Commission in CC No. 346 of 2013 Lt. Col. Anil Raj & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. decided on 02.05.2016. In Col. Anil Raj (Supra), the complainants had entered into an agreement for purchase of a plot in this very project i.e. Uniworld City in Mohali, Punjab but the OP had failed to deliver possession of the said plot within the time stipulated in the Buyers Agreement. The OP, during the course of hearing of the aforesaid complaint, expressed willingness to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. They were directed by this Commission to refund accordingly. The OP however, failed to comply with the said order. This Commission, considering the deficiency on the part of the OP in rendering services to the aforesaid complainant and also taking note of the conduct of the OP in not honouring its own commitment of refund alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, directed it to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each deposit till realization. The OP was also directed to pay cost of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant and deposit Rs.2,00,000/- with the Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission. 9. Even on merits, I find no justification for the delay in offering possession of the plot to the complainant. As far as the Commonwealth Games are concerned, they were held way back in October 2010, almost five years before the parties entered into the second Buyers Agreement. Therefore, reference to the said Games is wholly misplaced. There is absolutely no evidence of the OP having tried to recruit labourers and having not been able to do so on account shortage of labour in the market. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea that the project could not be completed on account of shortage of labour. In any case, the alleged shortage of labour refers to NCR region whereas the plot in question is stated in Mohali. 10. As regards the alleged shortage of water, the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16.07.2012, the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 14.09.1999 as well as the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08.05.2009 suspending the mining operations in Aravali Region are concerned, all these events happened prior to the parties entering into the second Buyers Agreement dated 23.03.2015. The OP despite the aforesaid events, having agreed to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant within six months of the said Buyers Agreement, cannot take the plea that the completion of the project has been delayed on account of the aforesaid reasons. I am therefore, satisfied that there was no justification for the delay in completion of the project and offering possession to the complainant. The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions: (i) The OP shall refund the entire amount of Rs.7218060/- paid by the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount paid by him is refunded to him alongwith compensation, in terms of this order. (ii) The OP shall also pay 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. | 
