Haryana

StateCommission

CC/465/2017

HARSH SANDHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP MALIK

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.465 of  2017

Date of the Institution:02.08.2017

Date of Decision: 06.07.2018

 

Harsh Sandhu S/o Chander Singh Sandhu R/o H.No.P-2AS 32, Princeton Estate DLF Phase-V Gurugram (Haryana).

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

1.      Unitech Limited, Real Estate Division (Marketing), ground Floor, Signature Towers South City-1 N.H-8 Gurgaon 122001, Haryana through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Managing Director Sales and Marketing.

2.      Unitech Limited, Real Estate Division (Marketing), Registered office 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110010 through its Manager/Authorized signatory/officer-in-charge/Managing Director Sales and Marketing.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Sandeep Malik, Advocate for complainant.

Mrs.Vertika H.Singh, Advocate for opposite parties (Already ex parte).

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1.                The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present complaint are as such that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties (O.ps.) and is resident of  DLF Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana.  He has booked a flat bearing No.0024 Floor 1 tower E in the area of Sector 70, Gurugram for his personal residential purpose.  Basic sale consideration of the flat was fixed at Rs.54,07,650/- . The allotment letter dated 02.08.2011 was also issued, which is Annexure C-1.  A buyers agreement was also executed on 04.10.2011.  An amount of Rs.31,23,054/- was also deposited against flat. The complainant has been regularly making the payment of the installment and the receipts in this regard have been issued Annexure C-3 to C-6.  The complainant had paid atleast 70% of the total sale consideration but since the project has not been completed, the possession has not been delivered and hence the present complaint with the prayer that O.Ps. may be directed to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.  A compensation of Rs.five lacs has also been sought for deficiency in service and the amount of Rs.75,000/- as litigation charges.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.Ps. and insptie of due and proper service the O.ps. have intentionally failed to put appearance and to contest the complaint and as such, as per the order passed by learned predecessor of this Commission had recorded ex parte  proceedings vide order dated  27.11.2017 and thereafter the complaint was fixed for recording the ex parte evidence.

3.                In the ex parte evidence, the learned counsel for the complainant had tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to EX.C-8 and closed the evidence of the complainant.

4.                Today when the complaint was taken up for advancing final arguments, Mrs. Vertika H.Singh Advocate has filed her Power of Attorney and joined the proceedings and to advance the  arguments and thereafter arguments have been advanced by Sh.Sandeep Malik learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sh.Vertika H.Singh learned counsel for the opposite parties.   With their kind assistance the entire record as well as whatever evidence has been led on behalf of the complainant had also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the contention raised on behalf of both the parties and the averments taken in the complaint, there is no dispute about  booking a flat by the complainant.  It is also true that complainant had made a part payment to the O.ps.  Since all the documents including the buyers agreement were also executed.   Since the O.Ps. did not maintain the discipline of the essence of time for delivery of the possession of the flat well in time even serving a legal notice Ex.C-8 has not brought  any fruitful result and as a sequence thereof since the remaining payment was not made by the complainant apprehending that the project will not be completed by the O.Ps. and there are no chances for delivery of the flat.  Basically the entire case of the complainant hinges around the statement of account Ex.C-7 issued by the office of the O.Ps.  As per the statement of account, a total amount of Rs.31,16,073/- has been shown to be paid but a perusal of the same statement of account Ex.C-7 reveals that one cheque bearing No.140536 issued for a sum of Rs.607518/- had been returned and it was dishonoured and as such, this amount was not paid.  If the cheque amount of Rs.607518/- is deducted in that eventuality the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount of Rs.25,15,536/-.

6.                With the above observation and discussion, while accepting the complaint, the directions are issued to the O.Ps. to make the payment of a sum of Rs.25,15,536/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of the installments paid by the complainant in different phases or different occasions as and when, the demand was raised by the O.Ps.  It is further clarified that the entire amount has been paid by the  O.Ps. within a period of 45 days, failing which, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 18% per annum for the defaulting  period.  The litigation charges of Rs.21,000/- is further allowed, in the interest of justice.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

 

July    06th, 2018                   Urvashi Agnihotri                 Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                        Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                   Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench               

S.K.