NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/547/2014

SAMAR SRIVASTAVA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MR. SUSHIL KAUSHIK

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 548 OF 2014
 
1. KOSHIKA AGARWAL
Through Shri. V.K. Gupta, S/o. Shri Anand Swaroop, R/o. M-43, Nivedita Kunj, Sector-10, RK Puram,
New Delhi
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
Through Its Managing Director, 6, Community Center, Saket
New Delhi-17
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1020 OF 2015
 
1. MANISH KUMAR SINGH
P2/02, TOWER NO. 4, 14TH FLOOR, PURVANCHAL ROYAL PARK, SECTOR-137,
NOIDA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
(THROUGH ITS M.D.) THE REAL ESTATE MARKETING DIVISION, 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1021 OF 2015
 
1. C P JOSHI & ANR.
C/O. VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
THROUGH ITS M.D.) THE REAL ESTATE MARKETING DIVISION, 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1075 OF 2015
 
1. MANAS TANDON
H. NO.-871, SECTOR 12, HUDA PANIPAT,
HARYANA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LTD.
(THROUGH ITS M.D./AR), THE REAL ESTATE MARKETING DIVISION, 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET,
NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1076 OF 2015
 
1. SHIVANK ARYA
510 SOBHA AQUAMARINE, SARJAPURA OUTER RING ROAD, BELLANDUR,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560103
2. MS. PREETI YARASHI
510 SOBHA AQUAMARINE, SARJAPURA OUTER RING ROAD, BELLANDUR,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560103.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LTD.
(THROUGH ITS M.D./AR), THE REAL ESTATE MARKETING DIVISION, 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET,
NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1309 OF 2015
 
1. RAJIV SHARMA
S/o. Mr. M.R. Sharma, R/o. 3256, Sector - 23,
Gurgaon-122017,
Haryana.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED & ANR.
Through Its Managing Director, Registered Office at 6, Community Centre, Saket,
New Delhi - 110 017.
2. M/s. Unitech Limited.,
Marketing Office At Signature Towers, Ground Floor, Nh-8, South City-I,
Gurgaon
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 545 OF 2014
 
1. SANJAY KUMAR
S/o. Mr. K.N. Srivastava, R/o. 518-B, Hamilton Court, DLF City, Phase- 4,
Gurgaon - 122 002.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
Through its Managing Director, 6, Community Center, Saket,
New Delhi - 17
2. MR. VIVEK GARG, DIRECTOR
PARSAVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION, SHAHDARA.
DELHI-110032
3. MR. VIVEK GARG.
B-5/53, 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK-B5, SUFDURJUNG ENCLAVE.
NEW DELHI-110029.
4. MR. ASHISH JAIN
PARSAVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION, SHAHDARA.
DELHI-110032
5. MR. ASHISH JAIN
1/5175, U.G. FLOOR, STREET NO.8, NEAR JAIN MANDIR, BALBITR NAGAR.
DELHI-110032
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 546 OF 2014
 
1. TANVINDER SINGH & ANR.
R/o. 56BP Colony, Civil Lines,
Rampur
U.P. 244 901
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
6, Community Center, Saket,
New Delhi -17
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 547 OF 2014
 
1. SAMAR SRIVASTAVA & ANR.
Through Sudha Srivastava, S/o. Sanjay Kumar, R/o. 401, A Wing, Jal Devi Niwas, Karnataka Society, Matunga West,
Mumbai
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
Through its Managing Director, 6, Community Center, Saket,
New Delhi - 17
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 549 OF 2014
 
1. VIMAL AGARWAL & ANR.
S/o. Shri Virendra Pal, Ekta Agarwal, W/o. Vimal Agarwal, R/o. House No. 9A, Tower-6, Central Park 2, Sohna Road,
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
Through Its Managing Director, 6, Community Center, Saket,
New Delhi -17
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 550 OF 2014
 
1. RITESH KUMAR AGRAWAL
S/o. Shri. Bajrang Lal Agarwal, R/o. M305, First Floor, Orchid Island, Sector -51,
Gurgaon
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
Through Its Managing Director, 6, Community Center, Saket,
New Delhi - 17.
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 899 OF 2015
 
1. DR. ASHISH LALL & ANR.
R/o. Lall Nursing Home & Maternity Home, New Railway Road,
Gurgaon
Haryana - 122 001.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LTD.
Through Its Managing Director, Signature Towers, Ground Floor, NH-8, South City-I,
Gurgaon - 122 002.
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 900 OF 2015
 
1. DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL
49-P, SECTOR-30,
GURGAON
HARYANA-122001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LTD.
(THROUGH ITS M.D.), 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET,
NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 970 OF 2015
 
1. MANPREET KAUR
W/o. Harbhajan Singh, R/o. H.No. 271, Old Housing Board Colony Sector 13,
Karnal 132 001.
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LTD.
Through Its Managing Director/Authorised Representative the Real Estate Marketing Division, 6, Community Centre, Saket,
New Delhi - 17.
...........Opp.Party(s)
CONSUMER CASE NO. 984 OF 2015
 
1. KUNAL SHARMA
(THROUGH SPA- RITU SHARMA) HOUSE NO. 2342/3, RAJIV NAGAR, OLD DELHI ROAD,
GURGAON
HARYANA-122001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED
(THROUGH ITS MD) THE REAL ESTATE MARKETING DIVISION, 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET,
NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)

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

For the Complainant :
For the Complainant(s)
Item nos. 48 to 51, 59 to 62
: Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocate
Ms. Himanshi Singh, Advocate
For the Complainant(s)
Item nos. 52 to 57
: Mr. Sudhir Mahajan, Advocate
For the Complainant(s)
Item no.58
: Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
For the Opposite Party(ies)
Item nos. 48 to 62 : Mr. Somesh Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the Opposite Party(ies)
Item nos. 48,59,60 & 62 : Mr. Chandra Sekhar Yadav, Advocate

Dated : 31 Oct 2017
ORDER

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainants are allottees of residential flats in the project, namely, ‘The Vistas’ which the opposite party is developing in Sector 70 of Gurgaon. The following are the particulars of the allotments made to the complainants, the total consideration agreed between the parties and the amount paid by them to the OP. As per the Buyers Agreement executed between the parties, the possession had to be delivered within 36 months from the execution of the said agreement.

Sl. No.

Name of the buyers

CC No.

Unit details

(Tower/Unit No.)

Total Consideration (Rs.)

Amount paid

(Rs.)

Date of possession

BBA Date

1

Koshika Aggarwal

CC/548/2014

B1-0204

3423512

2789500

15.05.2013

15.05.2010

2

Ritesh Kumar Aggarwal

CC/550/2014

A3-0902

5001174

4473158

04.12.2012

04.12.2009

3

Dr. Ashish Lall

CC/399/2015

B2-1202

4781775

4184775

03.05.2013

03.05.2010

4

Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal

CC/900/2015

A1-0402

5311147

4851884

02.11.2012

03.11.2009

5

Manpreet Kaur

CC/970/2015

A5-203

5255454

4787181

01.02.2013

01.02.2010

6

Kunal Sharma

CC/984/2015

A1-103

5244595

4947446

13.11.2012

13.11.2009

7

Manish Kumar Singh

CC/1020/2015

A2-501

5422200

5739978

19.10.2012

19.10.2009

8

CP Joshi

CC/1021/2015

A5-702

5277403

5196568

24.11.2012

24.11.2009

9

Manas Tandon

CC/1075/2015

B2-304

4006206

3620225

15.02.2013

(Resale dt.05.07.2012)

15.02.2010

 

10

Shivank Arya

CC/1076/2015

B4-601

6215225

5255130

25.04.2013 (Resale dt. 22.07.2011)

25.04.2010

11

Rajiv Sharma

CC/1309/2015

A11-0202

5544936

5479131

15.02.2013

15.02.2010

12

Sanjay Kumar

CC/545/2014

A11-0801

5510477

5025256

15.01.2016

15.01.2013

13

Tanvinder Singh

CC/546/2014

B4-1102

5646630

4353510

11.04.2013

12.04.2010

14

Samar Srivastava

CC/547/2014

A4 1202

4829683

4220840

04.01.2013

04.01.2010

15

Vimal Aggarwal

CC/549/2014

A6-0702

5138454

4708298

03.12.2012

03.12.2009

 

2.      The grievance of the complainants is that the possession of the flats has not even been offered to them despite they having made substantial payments to the OP. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the flats allotted to them along with compensation etc.

3.      The complaints have been resisted by the OP which has taken a preliminary objection that since the agreed sale consideration was less than Rs.1 crore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. On merits, the complaints have been resisted on the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in a number of consumer complaints including CC No.1191 of 2015 Vishal Mehta & Ors. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited decided on 19.07.2017.

4.      The learned counsel for the OP states on instructions that since the complaints are at the stage of final hearing and are covered by a previous decision of the Commission in Vishal Mehta & Ors. (supra), he has instructions not to press the plea of want of pecuniary jurisdiction. As far as grounds on merits are concerned since the same have already been rejected in Vishal Mehta & Ors.  (supra), the same need not be revisited again.  The complaints are, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:-

(i)     The OP shall complete the construction of the flats allotted to the complainants, on or before 31.07.2018.  The OP shall also apply for grant of the requisite occupancy certificate on or before that date.

(ii)     The OP shall obtain the requisite occupancy certificate at its own responsibility on or before 31.10.2018 and offer possession of the flats to the complainants.

(iii)     The OP shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum, to the complainants other than the complainants in CC/1075/2015 and CC/1076/2015, which are resale cases, w.e.f. the committed date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually delivered in terms of this order after obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate.  The complainants in CC Nos. 1075 of 2015 and 1076 of 2015 shall be paid compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 6.7.2015 and 23.7.2014 respectively, though they shall also be entitled to the contractual compensation for the period between 15.2.2013 to 5.7.2015 in CC No.1075 of 2015 and for the period from 25.4.2013 to 22.7.2014 in CC No. 1076 of 2015.  The compensation shall be paid on the amount already paid to the OP, by the date stipulated in the allotment letter/Buyers Agreement for the delivery of the possession.  Though the OP shall be entitled to raise additional demand in consonance with the allotment letter/Buyers Agreement on the construction reaching the prescribed level, it shall adjust the compensation payable in terms of this order and due till that date, out of the demand it may raise against the flat buyers.  Thus, the demand would be restricted to the balance amount if any after adjusting the compensation which has become payable by that time in terms of this order.   The aforesaid compensation is acceptable to the complainants if the possession of the flat is delivered to them in terms of this order.

(iv)     If the OP fails to complete the construction in terms of this order and apply for the occupancy certificate on or before 31.07.2018 or it having completed the construction and having applied for the grant of the occupancy certificate by 31.07.2018, fails to obtain the requisite occupancy certificate at its own responsibility by 31.10.2018, it shall refund the entire amount received from the complainants alongwith such compensation which the Hon’ble Supreme Court may finally award to the allottees of residential flats in the project ‘Vistas’ in the appeals preferred by the OP against the order of this Commission dated 08.06.2015 which are presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

(v)     The refund if it becomes payable in terms of this order, shall be paid within three months of the date on which it becomes payable or the date on which the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally decides the appeals preferred by the OP against the decision of this Commission in Satish Kumar Pandey (supra), whichever be later. 

(vi)     The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation. 

(vii)     It is made clear that if the complainants want to wait further for the possession of the flat allotted to them instead of taking refund despite having entitled to do so in terms of this order, it shall be open to them to wait for the possession of the flat allotted to them till the time deemed appropriate by them.  They will be entitled to exercise the option of receiving the refund in terms of this order with compensation as and when they choose to give up the wait and seek refund of the amount paid by them. 

(viii)     The allotment made to the complainants shall not be cancelled by the OP till 31.10.2018.

 
......................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.