Delhi

StateCommission

CC/450/2016

MANOJ TEWANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MEGHA KATARI

18 Oct 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments 18.10.2019

Date of Decision : 23.10.2019

COMPLAINT NO.450/2016

In the matter of:

 

                Mr. Manoj Tewani ,

            S/o. Shri N.D. Tewani,

R/o. D-17, Lajpat Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110024.                                                             ………Complainant

Versus

 

Unitech Ltd,

Unitech House, Signature Tower,

L-Block, South City,

Phase-I, Gurgaon,

Haryana- 122001.

 

Also at:

Unitech Ltd.

6 Community Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.………Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The case of the complainant is that he booked a residential flat in project ‘Unitech Hsabitat’ in the year 2006 for Rs.56,63,510/-. He gave Rs.5 lakhs as token money and OP issued allotment letter dated 03.01.07. He took loan of Rs.50 lakhs from SBI under SBI Maxgain Home Loan Scheme. He paid Rs.54,24,160/- which is almost 95% of the total cost of flat. Hence this complaint for directing the OP to refund Rs.54,24,160/- with interest @10% p.a. w.e.f. 03.01.10 / the date of committed possession, Rs.15 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
2. The OP was served for 25.11.16 but did not appear. Its right to file WS was closed. Later on on 21.04.17 OP was permitted to file WS within 4 weeks subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. The OP failed to pay the cost or file the WS. Hence order of closing right to file WS was revived.
3. In his evidence the complainant has filed his own affidavit. He has also filed written arguments.
4. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted case of complainant particularly when the same is based on documentary evidence.
5. The complainant relied upon decision of NC in CC no.1312/16 titled as Jalaj Anand vs. Unitech decided on 11.09.17 in which the OP was directed to refund the amount with interest @10% p.a. Reliance has also been  placed on another decision of NC in CC no.1130/16 titled as Niru Kaushal vs. Unitech decided on 31.07.17 in which the OP was directed to refund the amount with interest @10% p.a.
6. In view of the above discussion the OP is directed to refund Rs.54,24,160/- with interest @10% p.a. from 31.01.10 / the date of committed possession as claimed by the complainant till the date of refund. 
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)