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

CC 1688 OF 2016

          The complainants namely Virender Mohan Marya and his wife Ms. Nirmal Marya booked a residential villa with the opposite party in a project namely Espace Premiere in Unitech Nirvana Country-II, Sector 71 and 72 of Gurgaon.  Unit No. 0051 in Block B of the aforesaid project was allotted to them for a total consideration of Rs.3,10,30,372/-.  The possession was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of the sale           agreement which came to be executed on 10.1.2013.  The grievance of the complainant is that despite they having already paid a sum of Rs.1,50,66,846/- to the opposite party, the possession of the aforesaid unit has not been offered to them.  The complainants are therefore before this Commission, seeking possession of the aforesaid unit, along with compensation etc.

CC 1689 of 2016

          The complainant Vinoy Kumar booked a residential unit in the above referred project namely Espace Premiere in Unitech Nirvana Country-II, Sector 71 and 72 of Gurgaon on 19.2.2011 and Unit No. 0067 in Block B of the aforesaid project was allotted to them for a total consideration of Rs.3,48,86,112/-.  Despite he having already paid Rs.2,57,59,523/- to the opposite party, the possession of the unit has not been offered to him.

CC 1690 of 2016

          The complainants namely Ashwin Mallick and his wife Ms. Puja Mallick booked a unit in the aforesaid project for a consideration of Rs.2,14,25,104/-.  Unit No. 0042 in Block B was allotted to them.  Despite they having already paid Rs.1,14,65,740/-, the possession has not been offered to them.

CC 1691 of 2016

          The complainant namely Vinoy Kumar booked a residential unit in the aforesaid project on 19.2.2011 and Unit No. 0068 in Bock B was allotted to him for a consideration of Rs.3,54,07,328/-.  The possession has not been offered to him despite he having already a sum of Rs.2,60,66,377/- to the opposite party.

          The Agreement in CC No. 1689 of 2016, CC 1690 of 2016 and CC 1691 of 2016 was executed on 21.5.2011, 22.3.2011 and 21.5.2011 respectively. 

CC 384 of 2016

          The complainants namely Manish Govil and Dr. J.N. Govil, booked a residential unit in the above referred project for a consideration of Rs.2,58,35,104/- and executed a Buyers Agreement with the opposite party on 20.4.2011 in respect of unit No.0079 in Block B which had been allotted to them.  The possession has not been offered to them despite they having already paid a sum of Rs.1,85,87,502/- to the opposite party.

CC/654/2016

          The complainants namely Anil Kumar and Nivedita Singh were also allotted a unit in the above referred project for a total consideration of Rs.2,50,08,3011.  Unit No. 0125 in Block B was allotted to them.  They also have been denied possession despite having paid Rs.1,89,50,449/-.  They executed the Buyers Agreement on 27.01.2012.

CC/655/2016

          The complainant namely Indu Gera booked a residential unit in the above referred project for a consideration of Rs.2,64,38,854/- and  Unit No. 0073 in Block B was allotted to her.  She entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 15.6.2011.  She also has not been offered possession despite having already paid Rs.1,71,69,322/-.

CC/656/2016

          The complainants namely Vipul Sabharwal and Vandana Sabharwal booked a residential unit in the aofresaid project for a total consideration of Rs.4,81,30,072/-.  Unit No. 0019 in Block B was allotted to them and they entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 23.2.2012 with the opposite party.  The possession has not been offered to them despite they having already paid a sum of Rs.1,65,92,961/-. 

CC/657/2016

          The complainants namely Vijesh Kumar Shriram Bagdi and Meetu Bagdi  and Vandana Sabharwal were allotted Unit No. 0095 in Block B in the above referred project for a total consideration of Rs.3,30,78,802/-.  They entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 08.10.2012.  The possession has not been offered to them despite they having already paid Rs.2,55,06,074/-.

CC 1531 of 2016

          One Uma Arora booked a residential villa with the opposite party in the above referred project and executed a Buyers Agreement on 02.7.2012.  The said buyer was was allotted unit No. 0058 in Block B of the above referred project for a consideration of Rs.3,40,25,132/-.  The complainant purchased her rights in the aforesaid villa on 10.5.2013. The possession of the villa has not been offered to her, despite Rs.2,16,96,635/- having already been paid.

CC 1436 of 2016

          One Reena Kwatra booked a residential villa with the opposite party in the above referred project and executed a Buyers Agreement on 06.4.2011.  She was allotted unit No. 0083 in Block B of the above referred project for a total consideration of Rs.2,14,25,104/-.  The complainant purchased her rights in the aforesaid villa on 30.7.2014.  The possession has not been offered to her despite she and her predecessor interest  having already paid Rs.1,57,71,510/-.

2.      The opposite party has resisted some of the complaints, filing a written version on the grounds which this Commission has earlier rejected in a number of consumer complaints including Consumer Complaint No.368 of 2015 Sudhanshu Pokhriyal Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., decided on 03.5.2017 and Consumer Complaint No. 603 of 2014 Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 02.5.2016.  Since the grounds on which some of these complaints have been contested have already been rejected by this Commission, the said grounds need not be discussed again.

3.      The next question which arises for consideration is as to what relief the complainants are entitled in the facts and circumstances of these cases.  The learned counsel for the complainants states, on instructions from the complainants, that they are keen to have possession of their respective residential units, they having purchased the same for their personal residence and therefore, are pressing for the said possession, along with compensation in the form of simple interest.  He further states that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, the complainants will be satisfied if they are paid compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum but in case the Hon’ble Supreme Court awards a higher compensation in a matter relating to this very project, along with a direction for delivery of possession, the complainants should be entitled to such a higher compensation.

4.      The learned counsel for the opposite party states that at present the construction is not complete, the work remain suspended and he is not in a position to say when the opposite party will be able to complete the construction, obtain the requisite occupancy certificate and offer possession of the villas to the complainants.

5.      Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Consumer Complaints No. CC/1688/2016, CC/1689/2016, CC/1690/2016, CC/1691/2016, CC/384/2016, CC/654/2016, CC/655/2016, CC/656/2016 and CC/657/2016 are disposed of with the following directions:

(i)      The opposite party shall complete construction of the villas allotted to the above referred complainants or their predecessor in interest, in all respects, on or before 30.9.2018;

(ii)      The opposite party shall obtain at its own cost and responsibility the requisite occupancy certificate in respect of the aforesaid villas on or before 30.11.2018;

(iii)     The opposite party after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate in terms of directions (i) and (ii) above, shall offer possession of the villas allotted to the complainants on or before 31.12.2018;

(iv)    The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum to the aforesaid complainants on the entire amount received by it, with effect from the committed date of possession i.e. two years from the date of execution of the Buyers Agreement, till the date on which the possession in terms of this order is actually offered to them after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate;

(v)     The compensation in terms of this order shall be paid at the time of offering of possession of the villas or by 31.12.2018, whichever be earlier;

(vi)    The opposite party shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in ach complaint;

(vii)    If the Hon’ble Supreme Court awards a higher compensation along with the direction for possession in respect of the villas allotted in the project namely Espace Premier in Sector 71 and 72 of Gurgaon, the complainants will be entitled to the said higher compensation, unless the Hon’ble Supreme Court directs that the order passed by it will not be treated as a precedent.

6.      Consumer Complaint No. CC/1436/2016 is disposed of with the following directions:

(i)      The opposite party shall complete construction of the villas allotted to the above referred complainants or their predecessor in interest, in all respects, on or before 30.9.2018;

(ii)      The opposite party shall obtain at its own cost and responsibility the requisite occupancy certificate in respect of the aforesaid villas on or before 30.11.2018;

(iii)     The opposite party after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate in terms of directions (i) and (ii) above, shall offer possession of the villas allotted to the complainants on or before 31.12.2018;

(iv)    The opposite party shall pay contractual compensation @ of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month to the complainant for the period from 07.4.2013 to 29.7.2016 and compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum with effect from 30.7.2016 till the date on which the possession in terms of this order, after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate is offered to her;

(v)     The compensation in terms of this order shall be paid at the time of offering of possession of the villas or by 31.12.2018, whichever be earlier;

(vi)    The opposite party shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in ach complaint;

(vii)    If the Hon’ble Supreme Court awards a higher compensation along with the direction for possession in respect of the villas allotted in the project namely Espace Premier in Sector 71 and 72 of Gurgaon, the complainants will be entitled to the said higher compensation, unless the Hon’ble Supreme Court directs that the order passed by it will not be treated as a precedent.

7.      Consumer Complaint No.CC/1531/2016 is disposed of with the following directions:

(i)      The opposite party shall complete construction of the villas allotted to the above referred complainants or their predecessor in interest, in all respects, on or before 30.9.2018;

(ii)      The opposite party shall obtain at its own cost and responsibility the requisite occupancy certificate in respect of the aforesaid villas on or before 30.11.2018;

(iii)     The opposite party after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate in terms of directions (i) and (ii) above, shall offer possession of the villas allotted to the complainants on or before 31.12.2018;

(iv)    The opposite party shall pay contractual compensation @ of Rs.50/- per sq. yard per month to the complainant for the period from 02.7.2012 to 03.7.2014 and compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum with effect from 03.7.2014 till the date on which the possession in terms of this order, after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite occupancy certificate is offered to her; 

(v)     The compensation in terms of this order shall be paid at the time of offering of possession of the villas or by 31.12.2018, whichever be earlier;

(vi)    The opposite party shall pay Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in ach complaint;

(vii)    If the Hon’ble Supreme Court awards a higher compensation along with the direction for possession in respect of the villas allotted in the project namely Espace Premier in Sector 71 and 72 of Gurgaon, the complainants will be entitled to the said higher compensation, unless the Hon’ble Supreme Court directs that the order passed by it will not be treated as a precedent.