JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          Mr. Raj Kapoor and Mrs. Anita booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘Unitech Cascades’ which the OP was to develop at Greater Noida.  Vide allotment letter dated 16.08.2005, apartment no. 0101 in Tower-3 of the aforesaid project was allotted to them for a consideration of Rs.37,41,969/-.  As per clause 4(a)(i) of the terms and conditions of allotment, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the allottees by 31.03.2008.  The said allotment was later purchased by the complainants and was transferred in their name vide endorsement dated 31.12.2007.  The grievance of the complainants is that the possession has not even been offered to them despite payment of Rs.46,09,107/- to the OP.  The complainants are therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith interest. 

2.      Vide order dated 08.02.2017, the OP was granted four weeks to file its affidavit by way of evidence.  The said opportunity was to be the last opportunity for the purpose of filing the affidavit by way of evidence as well as the affidavit of admission/denial of documents.  The OP did not comply with the said order.  Thereafter, vide order dated 05.04.2017, it was granted another opportunity to comply with the said order within four weeks subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as cost with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of NCDRC.  Though the affidavits were filed later on, the cost was not deposited.  The aforesaid affidavits, therefore, shall not be taken into consideration.  No one is present for the OP even on the third call. 

3.      The documents and the affidavits filed by the complainants prove the allotment made to them as well as the payment made to the OP in respect of the flat which was booked by the predecessors in interest of the complainants but was later transferred in their name.  The possession of the apartment having not been delivered despite expiry of more than ten years from the last date stipulated for this purpose, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount paid to the OP in respect of the said flat alongwith appropriate compensation. 

4.      The learned counsel for the complainants states that the complainants had taken a loan of Rs.25 lacs from HDFC Bank at the interest rate of 10.75% per annum for making payment to the OP.  She further states that the complainants are restricting their claim to refund of the principal amount paid to the OP alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest on that amount, at the rate of 10.75% per annum and on the remaining amount @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.

5.      In CC No. 60 of 2016, Surender Chauhan & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr. decided on 10.02.2017, the complainants had booked a residential flat with the OP in this very project namely ‘Unitech Cascades’.  Since the OP failed to deliver possession of the said flat, they approached this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by them with compensation.  The complaint was resisted by the OP primarily on the following grounds:

          (i)      There was major disruption in the construction activities due to agitations and Dharans by farmers whose land was acquired by the Noida Authority and the said agitations had resulted in slackening of the availability and the supply of raw-material.

(ii)      Vide Notification dated 14.9.2016 issued by Ministry of environment and Forest (MOEF), Central Govt. imposed certain restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities based on their potential environmental impact unless prior environmental clearances were obtained. The procedure for obtaining the approvals and sanctions  led to delay in the construction schedule.

(iii)     There was acute shortage of labour, water and other raw-material.

(iv)    Writ Petitions were filed by the farmers before the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquisition of land by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(v)    Some of the towers in this project have already been constructed whereas construction is going on in the remaining towers. As regards Tower-2 in which flat allotted to the complainants was to be located, it is alleged that external and internal plaster are going on in the said tower.

          It was also alleged that in view of clause 4.c of the terms and conditions of allotment in the event of delay, the allottees entitled only to the agreed compensation of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. of the super area per month.

          All the aforesaid contentions were rejected by this Commission and the OP was directed to refund the entire principal amount alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum. 

6.      The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

          (i)     The OP shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.46,09,107/- to the complainants alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10.75% per annum on the amount of Rs.25 lacs and @ 10% per annum on the balance principal amount.  Interest shall be paid from the date of each payment till the date of full refund. 

          (ii)      The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants.

          (iii)     The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.