Haryana

StateCommission

CC/411/2017

RAVI CHANDER KAUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH REALITY - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.SHARMA

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     411 of 2017

                                      Date of Institution                  05.07.2017

                                       Date of Decision                             29.08.2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.      Shri Ravi Chander Kaul son of Sh. Makhan Lal Kaul, aged about 63 years, resident of S-3/805, EldecoAamantran, Sector 119, Noida-201 305, Uttar Pradesh.

 

2.      Smt. Vijay Laxmi Kaul, wife of Shri Ravi ChanderKaul, aged about 59 years, resident of S-3/805, EldecoAamantran, Sector 119, Noida-201 305, Uttar Pradesh.

                                      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 Ravi Chander Kaul and his wife Smt. Vijay Laxmi Kaul-complainants averring that initially on April 17^th, 2009, Tarun Kumar and his wife Shashi Poonam booked a flat with Unitech Realty Private Limited-opposite parties (developer). Flat No.0802, Floor-8, Tower A4, Uniworld Gardens-II, Sector 47, Gurgaon was allotted to them. The price of the flat was Rs.43,80,497/-. Flat Buyers Agreement dated May 20^th, 2009 was executed between them and the developer. Thereafter, the complainants purchased the said flat from Tarun Kumar and Shashi Poonam and the said flat was transferred in their name vide letter dated October 28^th, 2010. As per Clause 4.a (i) of the Buyers Agreement, the possession of the apartment was supposed to be offered within 30 months from the date of execution of the agreement, that is, on or before November 19^th, 2011. In all, the complainants paid Rs.43,55,015/- to the developer. Vide letter dated March 24^th, 2015, the developer informed that the delivery of possession was delayed and would be delivered by March 31^st, 2016.  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 19^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.   

3.      The complainant Ravi Chander Kaul in his evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

1.	Brochure	Exhibit C-1
2.	Buyer’s agreement	Exhibit C-2
3.	Receipt dated 28.10.2010 of Rs.1,01,625/-	Exhibit C-3
4.	Letter dated 28.10.2010 regarding transfer of allotment of flat	Exhibit C-4
5.	Receipt dated 24.11.2010 of Rs.15379/-	Exhibit C-5
6.	Receipt dated 11.12.2010 of Rs.298617/-	Exhibit C-6
7.	Receipt dated 03.01.2011 of Rs.168617/-	Exhibit C-7
8.	Receipt dated 03.01.2011 of Rs.7689/-	Exhibit C-8
9.	Receipt dated 03.01.2011 of Rs.130000/-	Exhibit C-9
10.	Receipt dated 07.12.2011 of Rs.196976/-	Exhibit C-10
11.	Receipt dated 20.01.2012 of Rs.196976/-	Exhibit C-11
12.	Receipt dated 25.03.2013 of Rs.106236/-	Exhibit C-12
13.	Receipt dated 25.03.2013 of Rs.1,00,000/-	Exhibit C-13
14.	Receipt dated 09.08.2016 of Rs.1,00,000/-	Exhibit C-14
15.	E-mail dated 17.12.2014 sent by complainant to the developer regarding delay in handing over the possession	Exhibit C-15
16.	Letter dated 24.03.2015 regarding intimation with regard to delay in offer of possession	Exhibit C-16
17.	E-mail dated 26.01.2016 sent by complainant to the developer	Exhibit C-17
18.	E-mail dated 06.02.2016 sent by complainant to the developer	Exhibit C-18
19.	Letter dated 27.07.2016 requesting payment of amount as advanced	Exhibit C-19
20.	Construction update-April 2017 of developer	Exhibit C-20

 

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

5.      Indisputably, Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-4) was executed between the parties on May 20^th, 2009. Flat No.0802, Floor 8, Tower A-4, Uniworld Gardens-II, Sector 47, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainants. The complainants paid Rs.43,55,015/- 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 19^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.43,55,015/- from the date of its respective deposits till handing over of the physical possession of the flat to the complainants.   

 

 

Announced 29.08.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 U.K