NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/92/2017

RAMAN SETH & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ISHAN SANGHI

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 92 OF 2017
 
1. RAMAN SETH & ANR.
S/O. MAJ. GEN. K.K. SETH, R/O. A 78, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI - 110 065.
2. MRS. RANJANA SETH
W/O. RAMAN SETH, R/O. A 78, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI - 110 065.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED
REGD. OFFICE: BASEMENT,6, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAEKT,
NEW DELHI - 110 017
...........Opp.Party(s)

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

For the Complainant :
Mr. Ishan Sangli, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Kumar Bansal, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Karan Malik, Advocate
Mr. Babanjeet Singh Mew, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Danish Jhamb, Advocate

Dated : 22 Nov 2017
ORDER

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

 

          The complainants namely Raman Seth and his wife Ranjana Seth booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely ‘Unitech Grande’ which the opposite party was developing in Sector 96, 97 and 98 of Noida.  Flat No. 2601 in Tower-3 in the aforesaid project was allotted to them for a total consideration of Rs.1,39,08,933.80.  Vide letter dated 14.8.2010.  The possession, as per Clause 16 of the terms and conditions of allotment was to be delivered within thirty months thereof, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 12.2.2013.  The grievance of the complainant is that the possession has not been offered to them despite they having already paid  a sum of Rs.1,25,20,514/- to the opposite party.  The complainants are therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the entire amount paid by them, along with compensation etc.

2.      The opposite party did not file the written version and its right to file the said, is therefore closed vide order dated 20.4.2017.  I have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and considered the affidavits filed by the complainants by way of evidence.

3.      The learned counsel for the complainants states, on instruction from complainant No.1, who is present in the Court that in order to avoid any further litigation in the matter, the complainants are restricting their claim to the refund of the principal amount paid by them, along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum in terms of Clause 18 of the terms and conditions of allotment which provides that if for any reason the developer is not in a position to offer the apartment altogether, it shall either offer 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.

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

(i)      The opposite party shall refund the principal amount of
Rs.1,25,20,514/- to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount along with simple interest @ 10% per annum in terms of this order is actually refunded.

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

(iii)     The payment in terms of this order shall be made 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.