NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/606/2017

SANJEEV MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH ACASIA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. VISHNU MEHRA & CO.

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 606 OF 2017
 
1. SANJEEV MALHOTRA
S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Malhotra B-112, Sector 30, Noida 201303
Gautambudh Nagar
U.P.
2. Mr. Aditya Malhotra
S/o Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra B-112, Sector 30, Noida 201303
Gautam Budh Nagar
U.P.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. UNITECH ACASIA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
Regd. Off. 6, Community centre, saket
New Delhi 110007
2. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd.
Regd. Off. 6 Community Centre, Saket
New Delhi 110007
3. CIG Infrastructure Pvt. ltd.
C-41, Mayfair Garden,
New Delhi
...........Opp.Party(s)

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

For the Complainant :
Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. R.K. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Varun, Advocate

Dated : 11 Oct 2017
ORDER

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainants booked a residential apartment with the opposite party in a project, namely, ‘Burgundy’  which the opposite party was to develop in Sectors 96 to 98 at Noida in U.P. The apartment No.1202 on Level 12 in  Tower-03 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainants for a consideration of Rs.41081380/-. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment executed between the parties, the possession for carrying out interiors and fit outs was to be offered within 42 months thereof, meaning thereby that the same ought to have been offered by 6.11.2016. The grievance of the complainants is that despite they having paid Rs.22827643/- to the opposite party, the possession of the aforesaid apartment has not been offered to them. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount along with compensation etc.

2.      The OP did not file the written version despite having been served on 10.4.2017. The right of the opposite party to file the written version was, therefore, closed vide order dated 27.6.2017. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the evidence filed by the complainants on affidavit.

3.      The issue involved in this complaint is is no more res-integra, being covered by several decisions of this Commission, including Consumer Complaint No.307 of 2015 – Pramod Yadav Vs. Unitech Hi-tech Developers Ltd. decided on 6.1.2017.

4.      The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, the complainants are restricting their claims to the refund of the principal amount paid by them along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a.  The complaint is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:-

(i)      The opposite party shall refund the entire amount of Rs.22827643/-  paid to it by the complainants along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date on which the whole of the aforesaid amount along with compensation in the form of interest in terms of this order is paid.

(ii)      The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants.

(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.