NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/1880/2017

SWETLANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/S. SUBRAMANIAM & ASSOCIATES

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1880 OF 2017
 
1. SWETLANA
LOCAL ADDRESS: FLAT NO. 2014, SANSKRITI APARTMENT, PLOT NO. 35, SECTOR 10, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR(S) OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (S), REGD. OFFICE AT: 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET,
NEW DELHI-110017
...........Opp.Party(s)

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

For the Complainant :
Mr. Sanuj Das, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Babanjeet Singh Mew, Advocate

Dated : 11 Jan 2018
ORDER

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

The complainant namely Swetlana booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project, namely, ‘Unitech South Park’ which the opposite party was to develop in Sector-70 of Gurgaon.  A residential unit bearing No.0601, 6th Floor, Block D-1, Unitech South Park, Sector-70, Gurgaon, Haryana was allotted to the complainant (Client ID No. USP-0564) for a consideration of Rs.1,16,78,080/-.  The possession as per the Buyers Agreement dated 17.01.2013, was agreed to be delivered to the complainant within 36 months thereof, meaning thereby that the possession of the flat ought to have been delivered by 17.01.2016.    The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the flat has not even been offered to her despite she having already paid a sum of Rs.54,50,199/- to the OP.

2.      The opposite party did not file its written version despite service and therefore, the right of the opposite party to file its written version was closed vide order dated 12.12.2017.

3.      I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the complainant.

4.      The learned counsel for the complainant states that the matter is covered by several previous decisions of this Commission including its decision dated 24.07.2017 in CC No.1483 of 2016 Amit Mitra & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & connected matters, CC No.667/2016 Rachna Sukhija & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr. and connected consumer complaints, Ravikant Bhatt Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. – CC No.1232 of 2015 decided on 22.9.2016 and Cap. Gurtaj Singh Sahni Vs. Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.603 of 2014 and connected matters, decided on 02.05.2016. 

5.      The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that in order to bring the litigation to a closure, the complainant is restricting her claim in this complaint to refund of the entire amount alongwith compensation in the form of interest @ 10% per annum in terms of clause 4.e of the Buyers Agreement.  The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

  1. The opposite party shall refund the entire amount Rs.54,50,199/-

    to the complainant along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount payable to the complainant along with compensation in terms of this order is actually paid.

  2. The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

  3. 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.