NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/1032/2017

RAJESH KUMAR VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH RELIABLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DR. HARISH UPPAL & MR. TILESHWAR PRASAD

18 Apr 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1032 OF 2017
 
1. RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
5985, Street No. 2, Block - 3, Devnagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi - 110005
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. UNITECH RELIABLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
Having its Registered office at, 6, Community Centre,
Saket
New Delhi - 110017
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Dr. Harish Uppal, Advocate
Mr. Tileshwar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :NEMO

Dated : 18 Apr 2018
ORDER

The complainant namely Rajesh Kumar Verma booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘Unitech Verve’ which the OP was to develop in Sector Pi-ii of Greater Noida.  Vide allotment letter dated 08.02.2007, apartment no. 403 in Tower No. 3 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant on the terms and conditions annexed thereto.  The sale consideration for the said flat was agreed at Rs.54,69,511/-.  As per clause 4(i)(a) of the terms and conditions of the allotment, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 08.02.2010.  The grievance of the complainant is that the possession was not offered to him despite he having paid Rs.50,69,093/- to the OP. 

The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith compensation.

2.      The OP did not file its written version and therefore, its right to file the written version was closed vide order dated 04.09.2017.  I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the affidavit filed by the complainant by way of evidence.  No one is present for the OP when the matter is taken up for hearing. 

3.      The affidavit and documents filed by the complainant duly prove his case including the allotment made to him, the payment made by him, and the default on the part of the opposite party.

4.      The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that considering the recent downward trend in the rate of interest, erosion in the value of the real estate and in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, the complainant is restricting his claim to the refund of the entire principal amount alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum in terms of clause 4.e which reads as under:

“4.e  Default:

         If for any reason the Developer is not in a position to offer the Apartment altogether, the Developer shall offer the Allottee(s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with Simple Interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation on this account.

5.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:

(i)      The OP shall pay the entire principal amount of Rs.50,69,093/- to the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund with compensation in terms of this order.

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

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

 
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.