Haryana

StateCommission

CC/380/2016

RENU CHOPRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

30 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.380 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 01.12.2016                            Date of Decision:30.11.2017

 

Ms. Renu Chopra W/o Sh.Pawan Kumar, aged about 48 years, R/o H.No.16, New Vijay Nagar, Ambala City.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing director, Signature Towers, Ground Floor, NH-8, South city-1 Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.      M/s Unitech Limited, through its Managing director Regd. Office 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017.

3.      Incharge office of Unitech Ltd., Unihomes Sector 16, Ambala City, Haryana.

…..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.R.S.Sathi, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Opposite parties ex parte vide order dated 11.10.2017.

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It is alleged by the complainant that she booked flat No.0125, ground floor Tower B in Unihomes, Sector-16 Ambala  on 16.04.2011 with O.Ps. for Rs.24,85,504/-.  Apartment  buyer  agreement  was  executed  in between them on 11.08.2011.  The possession was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of agreement i.e. 11.08.2014.   As per payment plan, she deposited the amount of Rs.10,04,117/-.   O.Ps. raised demand of fourth installment without commencement of any type of construction.  She requested them to pay deposited amount alongwith interest, but, neither they started construction of site in question nor refunded the amount. They be directed to return the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 12%. Rs.4,00,000/- be paid as compensation, Rs.three lacs for unfair trade practice and Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by O.Ps. that she was defaulter in payments of instalments.  The company could not handover possession of the flat due to Global meltdown of the economy world wide.  They also faced problem regarding shortage of labour in the city due to which construction work was further delayed. O.ps. did not start any other project from her payment. Objections about  accruing cause of action,  maintainability of complaint, concealment of material facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.  

3.      O.ps. were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 11.10.2017, so arguments of only complainant’s counsel are heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that keeping in view the brochure and advertisement she purchased flat in question.  As per agreement possession of this flat was  to be delivered  after 36 months.   She had already deposited Rs.10,04,117/-, but, neither construction is started nor possession is delivered.  So O.Ps. be directed to refund her amount alongwith interest, as mentioned above. 

5.      As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that complainant purchased this flat from O.Ps.  Neither O.Ps. started construction nor refunded amount in question to her.  In reply, O.ps. admitted that due to Global meltdown of economy world wide, construction could not be completed in time.  Since they admitted that they could not start construction and due to that reason possession  could not be delivered in time, so the complainant is entitled for refund of deposited amount alongwith  interest.    Hence O.Ps. are directed to pay the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 9%   from the date of deposit till realization alongwith compensation of Rs.15,000/- for  mental harassment and agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

 

November, 30th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.