STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                             Consumer Complaint No.     414 of 2017

                                      Date of Institution                  07.07.2017

                                       Date of Decision                             29.08.2018

1.      Smt. Minakshi Tandon wife of Shri Deepak Tandon aged about 50 years, resident of Flat No.201, Tower 2, Sushant Estate, Sector 52, Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana.

2.      Shri Deepak Tandon son of late Shri V.S. Tandon, aged about 51 years, resident of Flat No.201, Tower 2, Sushant Estate, Sector 52, Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana.

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      Unitech Reality Private Limited, (Earlier known as Rhino Holdings Private Limited) through its Managing Director, Unitech House, Block L, South City-I, Gurugram-122007, Hayana.

2.      Unitech Limited through its Managing Director, Shri Ajay Chandra, Unitech House, Block L, South City-I, Gurugram-122007, Haryana.

Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

For the parties:   Shri N.P. Sharma, counsel for the complainants

                             Ms. Vertika H Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

          The present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Consumer Act’) has been filed by Minakshi Tandon and her husband Deepak Tandon-complainants averring that on April 19^th, 2009 they booked a flat with Unitech Realty Private Limited-opposite parties (for short ‘Developer’). The price of the flat was Rs.31,18,827/-. They were allotted Flat No.1404, Floor 13^th, Tower A-4, Uniworld Gardens II, Sector 47, Gurgaon. Flat Buyers Agreement dated May 16^th, 2009 was executed.  As per Article 4.a, the Developer proposes to offer possession of the flat within a period of 30 months from the date of execution of the agreement, that is, on or before November 15^th, 2011.  In all, the complainants paid Rs.30,91,274/- to the Developer.  The Developer did not offer possession of the flat to the complainants. The complainants prayed that the Developer be directed to offer the possession of the flat and to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from November 15^th, 2011 till delivery of the possession. 

2.      The opposite parties, in their written version, resisted the complaint on various grounds, including its maintainability. The developer in preliminary objections averred that this Commission does not have the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try/adjudicate the complaint.  The complainants are defaulters in making the payment.  The complainants are investors.  They do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. The overall recession and financial problems, which were not foreseen, contributed to the delay in the completion of the project.  Though they have paid Rs.30,91,274/- but one cheque amounting to Rs.91,170/- was dishonored. So, the payment made was Rs.30,00,104/- instead of Rs.30,91,274/-.   

3.      The complainant Deepak Tandon in his evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

4.      The developer, examined Lalit Gupta-OPW1, Authorized Representative and produced resolution dated June 19^th, 2015 Exhibit OP-1.

5.      Indisputably, the complainants booked flat with the developer. Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-4) was executed between the parties on May 16^th, 2009. Flat No.1404, Floor 13^th, Tower A-4, Uniworld Gardens-II, Sector 47, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainants. The complainants paid Rs.30,00,104/- to the developer.  As per clause 4 a (i) of the agreement, the possession of the flat – apartment was to be given within thirty months of signing the agreement, that is, by November 15^th, 2011 but the developer failed to do so and it was certainly a case of deficiency in service.  Except for a bald plea in the written version that the apartment had been purchased by the complainants with a view to sell it on premium and make profits, Developer has not said even an additional word in this behalf, leave alone leading evidence to prove the assertion.  Lalit Gupta-OPW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the flat was purchased for commercial purpose. Neither the possession was offered to the complainants nor any interest on the said amount was paid to them. The developer is still not in a position to handover the possession of the flat to the complainants.  The main reliefs sought by the complainants are that the developer be directed to handover the possession of the flat to them and to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the deposited amount. 

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to handover physical possession of the flat in question complete in all respect within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and before taking over the possession of the flat, the complainant shall pay the entire outstanding dues to the developer.  The developer is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.30,00,104/- from the date of its respective deposits till handing over of the physical possession of the flat to the complainants.   

 U.K