NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/177/2016

DR. ANIL SONI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MR. PRADEEP NORULA

22 Dec 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 177 OF 2016
 
1. DR. ANIL SONI & ANR.
76, AMBLESIDE, URMSTON, MANCHESTER, M41,
ENGLAND,U.K.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. UNITECH LTD. & ANR.
6, COMMUNITY CENTRE SAKET,
NEW DELHI-110017
2. PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
PLOT NO. 10 UG 1 SEC 3, BETA TOWER,
VASUNDHARA, GHAZIABAD,U.P.
...........Opp.Party(s)

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

For the Complainant :
Mr. Pradeep Narula, Advocate
Ms. Urmila Verma, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai , Advocate

Dated : 22 Dec 2017
ORDER

 

JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, (ORAL)

 

The complainants booked a residential flat with the opposite party  in a project namely “Anthea Floors Wildflower Country”, which the OP was to  develop in Gurgaon. A Flat bearing No. 0014 in the aforesaid project was allotted to them,  vide allotment letter dated 1.9.2011 for a total consideration of Rs.87,24,274/-.  The possession of the flat as per clause 4.a of the Buyer’s Agreement executed between the parties on 17.11.2011, was to be delivered within 36 months thereof, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 17.11.2014.  The grievance of the complainants is that despite they having already paid as much as Rs.90,63,772/- to the opposite party, the possession of the flat has not been offered to them.  The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the entire amount paid by them alongwith compensation etc. 

2.      The OP filed written version contesting the complaint on the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in several decisions. No affidavit by way of evidence, however, has been filed by the OP despite the cost having been imposed upon it on the last date of hearing. The complainants, however,  have filed affidavit by way of evidence.

3.      Since the grounds on which the complaint has been resisted by the OP have already been rejected by this Commission in several previous decisions, including Consumer Complaint No.199 of 2015 - Rakhee Dey & Ors. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd., decided on 31.7.2017 and Consumer Complaint No. 591 of 2015 – Sunil Tuli Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd., decided on 21.9.2016., the same need not be re-visited again.

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

(i)      The OP shall refund the entire amount of Rs.90,63,772/-  taken from the complainants alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of each payment till the date on which the entire amount alongwith compensation in the form of interest in terms of this order is  actually refunded.

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

(iii)     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.