JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

          The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely ‘The Harmony’ which the said opposite parties were to develop in Sector-50 of Gurgaon.  Vide his application dated 29.8.2006,  Flat No.0403 in  Tower No.8 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.1,22,04,547/-.  The parties then entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 13.09.2006, incorporating their respective obligations and as per Clause 4(a) of the said Agreement, the possession was to be delivered by 30.9.2009.  Since the possession of the flat has not even been offered to him, the complainant is before this Commission with the following prayers:-

“a) Direct the OP. to handover the possession of the aforesaid  apartment complete in all respects to the complainants immediately as per the Buyer’s Agreement and execute all the necessary and required documents in respect of the said apartment in favor of the complainants or in alternative ' provide a ready to move in apartment to the complainants which is of identical size and in similar locality or in alternative pay a sum of Rs.2,47,10,000/- (Rupees Two ‘Crore forty seven Lakhs and Ten thousand only) being the. available market rate of the similar house @ Rs.10,000/per sq. ft., the apartment being of the size 2471 sq. ft., to enable the complainants to purchase another house on their own.

 
b) Direct the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 12% pa on the sum collected by the OP towards the house from the date of possession as per the buyer’s agreement till the actual possession.

 c) Grant immunity from escalation from any cost including service tax incurred after the proposed date of possession as per the builder buyers agreement.

d)  Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant towards the cost of litigation.”

2.      The opposite parties did not file their written version within the prescribed period and therefore their right to file the said written version is closed vide order dated 24.5.2017.  I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavit filed by the complainant by way of evidence.

3.      The learned counsel for the complainant states that the matter is squarely covered several decisions of this Commission including its recent decision dated 16.11.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.625 of 2017 – Sudhir K. Gupta Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr., M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr. and the earlier decisions - Consumer complaint No. 760 of 2016 and connected matters, including Consumer Complaint No.2 of 2014 Mohit Chopra Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., decided on 30.5.2017, CC No.1088 of 2015, Raja Balasubramanian Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., & Anr. Decided on 18.4.2017 and CC No. 368 of 2014 Shweta Kapoor & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr. decided on 14.1.2016.

4.      The learned counsel for the complainants also states that the complainant is restricting his claim to the refund of the principal amount paid by him, along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum, in terms of Clause 4.e of the Buyer’s Agreement.

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

(i)      The opposite parties shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.1,14,61,269/- to the complainant, alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date on which the payment is made till the date on which the entire amount payable to the complainants along with compensation in terms of this order is actually paid.

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

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