The opposite party has not filed the affidavit evidence despite giving an opportunity subject to cost.  Cost has also not been paid by the opposite party.

2.         It is prayed by the counsel for the complainants that in identical matter i.e. Consumer Case no. 1442 of 2016 titled Arvind Nevita  Vs. M/s Unitech Limited relating to same project of the opposite party, this Commission had ordered refund of the deposits made by the complainant alongwith compensation @ 10% p.a. from the respective date of deposits and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  It is prayed that order in this class suit may also be passed in those terms.

3.         No ground has been shown by the opposite party for giving any further opportunity for filing affidavit evidence.  Their right to file affidavit evidence is closed.

4.         I  have heard argument of counsel for the parties.  This is a class suit filed by 83 complainants, whose name appear in the memo of parties, alleging that they are allottees of the residential units in the project of the opposite party called ‘Crestview Apartment’ township called Wildflower  Country located at Sector 70, Gurgaon which was to be developed by the opposite party.  It is submitted that opposite party promised to hand over the physical possession of their subjective residential units within 39 months from the date of sale agreement. More than  2 ½  years have already been passed, yet there is no progress of the construction at the site and also the possession of the subjective units have not been offered to the complainants despite the fact that they have been regularly making the payments of the consideration amount.  It is submitted that there is clear deficiency in service and complainants are entitled for the relief as prayed and given in various other pronouncements of the similar project by this Commission.

5.         Written version has been filed by the opposite party but it was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation and hence it was not taken on record.  However, on perusal of the written version, it is apparent that contention of the complainants that their residential units have not been offered to them for possession within the stipulated period has not been controverted.  By this uncontroverted fact and also by way of affidavit, complainants have proved that opposite party has failed to hand over the subjective units to them within the stipulated period.  This amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint is, therefore, allowed with following directions:

1. Opposite party is directed to refundthe entire deposited amount received from the respective complainants alongwith compensation to each of them in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. on their deposits from the respective dates of such deposits till its realization;

2. Litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in toto is also awarded to the complainants.

3. The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.