Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/29

RENU CHANDWANI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                            Date of Decision: 29/07/2015

Consumer Complaint No. 29/2012

In the matter of:

1.     Renu Chandwani

        Wife of Mr. Sanjay Chandwani

        R/o F-6, 2^nd Floor,

        Lajpat Nagar, Part-1,

        New Delhi-110024.

 

2.     Mr. Sajay Chandwani

        Son of Mr. P.K. Chandwani,

R/o F-6, 2^nd Floor,

        Lajpat Nagar, Part-1,

        New Delhi-110024.                                     

                                                                         Complainants

 

Versus

 

M/s. Unitech Limited

6, Community Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017

                                                      

Also at:

UGCC Pavilion

Sector 96, Express Way

(Near Amity Management School)

Noida 201 305, (U.P.)                                          Opposite Party

 

CORAM

 

SH N P KAUSHIK                              -                  Member (Judicial)

SH. S.C. JAIN                          -                  Member

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

Facts of the complaint are not in dispute.  The complainants Ms.Renu Chandwani and Sh.Sanjay Chandwani entered into ‘flat buyer’s agreement’ with M/s. Unitech Ltd. 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi on 30^th June 2006 in a  project of OP known as “Unitech Habitat” on plot No. 9, Phase-II, Greater Noida, UP. A ‘flat buyer’s agreement’ in September 2006 was entered into. Total cost of the flat was Rs. 60,75,270/-.  It was agreed that the possession of the flat would be delivered by the OP to the complainant within 36 months from the date of the aforesaid agreement.  Complainant in order to discharge their obligations, took loan from M/s AXIS Bank and paid the entire consideration of the flat amounting to Rs. 60,75,270/-. Complainants received a letter dated 18/4/2011 from the OP vide which complainants were called upon to take possession of the flat in question.  Complainants visited the site and found that not only the flat, even the construction of the tower was incomplete. Complainants again visited the site on 6/11/2011 and found the construction incomplete. Electricity wires were not laid. Kitchen was incomplete. Bathroom too was incomplete. Complainants have prayed for refund of the whole amount deposited by them and the amount of interest charged from them by the bank from which they had taken the loan.  Complainants placed on record the certificate from Axis Bank to show that the bank had charged interest @10.2% p.a. from the complainants.  Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs & litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs have also been prayed for.

 

OP in its defence has submitted that the complainant wanted to purchase the flat for the purpose of investment. Delay if any, in the allotment of the flat was governed by clause 4C(ii) of the agreement. As per the said provisions, the complainant was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 per. sq. ft. per month for the period of delay.  Next submission of the OP is that on 15/4/2011, he called upon the complainant to make payment of the outstanding dues.  Vide letter dated 14/5/2011, OP requested the complainant to inspect the flat through the site engineer and take possession.  Contention of the OP is that the complainants were simply harassing and blackmailing the OP.

 

Admittedly, the flat buyer’s agreement was entered into on 23/9/2006. Possession of flat was to be handed over in a period of 26 months from the date of agreement.  It is also admitted by the OP that the complainant made the payment of Rs. 4,09,440/- demanded by it vide letter dated 15/4/2011. It was only thereafter that the OP vide its letter dated 14/5/2011 asked the complainant to take possession of the flat.  The photographs of the site and the flat in question placed on record, pertain to 6/11/2011 & 18/3/2012.  The photographs show that the construction in the tower was still going on.

 

It is not the case of the OP that the complainant committed any default in making the payments as per agreement dated 23/9/2006.  Complainants were justified in not taking the possession of incomplete flat.  It is thus a clear case of ‘unfair trade practice’. 

 

In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant as under:-

1. to refund the amount of Rs. 60,38.815/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10.25% p.a. from the date of deposit  
2. to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.
3. to pay to the complainant the litigation charges of Rs. 25,000/-.

All the abovesaid payments shall be made by the OP to the complainant within a period of 60 days from today failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of 60 days from the receipt of the orders.

 

Files be sent to the Record Room. 

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDIUCIAL)

 

 

 

(S.C.  JAIN)

MEMBER

 

(m)