Haryana

StateCommission

CC/495/2017

PUSHP LATA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

20 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     495 of 2017

                                      Date of Institution                  16.08.2017

                                       Date of Decision                             20.09.2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pushp Lata wife of Sh. Ishwar Singh, resident of TVS Wali Gali, Uttam Nagar, Delhi Road, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Unitech Limited, Registered Office: 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.

 

2.      M/s Unitech Limited, Real Estate Division (Marketing), Ground Floor, Signature Tower, South City-1, NH-8, Gurgaon -122001 through Director (Marketing).

 

3.      M/s Unitech Limited, Uni Homes, Sector 15, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari through its Manager (Site).

Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                  

                                                                                                               

 

For the parties:   Shri Pardeep Solath, counsel for the complainant

                             Ms. Vertika H Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          The present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Consumer Act’) has been filed by Pushp Lata-complainant averring that on June 24^th, 2011 she booked an apartment with Unitech Limited-opposite parties (for short ‘Developer’). The price of the Apartment was Rs.29,57,020/-. She was allotted Apartment No.0045, Block B, Unihomes, Sector 15, Rewari. Flat Buyers Agreement dated August 25^th, 2011 was executed.  As per Article 4.a.i), the Developer proposes to offer possession of the Apartment within a period of 24 months from the date of signing of the agreement, that is, on or before August 24^th, 2013.  In all, the complainant paid Rs.8,58,558/- to the Developer.  The construction has not been started by the Developer.  The complainant prayed that the Developer be directed to refund the deposited amount, that is, Rs.8,58,558/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2.      The opposite parties, in their written version, resisted the complaint on various grounds, including its maintainability. The builder in preliminary objections averred that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try/adjudicate the complaint because the complainant is not “Consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Act, as the apartment in question has been booked for resale/commercial purpose. The overall recession and financial problems, which were not foreseen, contributed to the delay in the completion of the project.  The complainant cannot seek refund of the deposited amount.   

3.      The complainant Pushp Lata in her evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

1.	Allotment Letter dated 24.06.2011	Exhibit C-1
2.	Buyer’s Agreement dated 25.08.2011	Exhibit C-2
3.	Payment Plans issued by the opposite parties	Exhibit C-3
4.	Receipt dated 24.06.2011	Exhibit C-4
5.	Receipt dated 18.08.2011	Exhibit C-5
6.	Receipt dated 20.10.2011	Exhibit C-6

 

4.      The developer, tendered affidavit of Lalit Gupta-OPW1, Authorized Representative and produced resolution dated June 19^th, 2015 Exhibit OP-1.

5.      Indisputably, the complainant applied for apartment with the developer. Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-2) was executed between the parties on August 25^th, 2011. Apartment No.0045, Block B, Unihomes, Sector 15, Rewari was allotted to the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.8,58,558/- to the developer.  As per clause 4 a (i) of the agreement, the possession of the flat – apartment was to be given within twenty four months of signing the agreement, that is, by August 24^th, 2013 but the developer failed to do so and it was certainly a case of deficiency in service.  Except for a bald plea in the written version that the apartment had been purchased by the complainant with a view to sell it on premium and make profits, Developer has not said even an additional word in this behalf, leave alone leading evidence to prove the assertion.  Learned counsel for the developer has admitted that the construction has not been started on the site.  Neither the deposited amount was refunded to the complainant nor any interest on the said amount was paid to her.  The developer is still not in a position to handover the possession of the apartment in near future.  Clause 4.e ‘Inability to offer Floor’ of the Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-2) reproduced as under:-

          “That if for any reason whatsoever, the Developer is unable to offer the allotted floor to the Purchaser(s), as agreed herein, the Developer will offer the Purchaser(s) an alternative property in any complex developed, underdevelopment or proposed to be developed in the surrounding area / projects and if no alternate property is available the Developer will refund the amount paid by the Purchaser(s) in full with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of payment(s) by the Purchaser(s).  The Developers shall not in the event o such an eventuality be liable to pay any other damages, charges or compensation.”

 

6.      A reading of the aforesaid clause shows that if for any reason the developer is not in a position to offer the allotted apartment, developer would offer an alternative property in any complex developed, underdevelopment property or to refund the amount paid by the allottee in full with 12% interest p.a. from the date of payment (s).  The developer neither offered alternative property nor refund the deposited amount.

7.      In view of above, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.8,58,558/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred Fifty Eight Only) to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the developer within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the developer fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.              

 

Announced 20.09.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K