Rama Sahdev vs Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd

V.K. Jain, J

The complainant booked a residential apartment with the opposite party in a project namely 'Unitech Verve', which the opposite party was to develop on Plot No.11 in Sector PI-II Greater Noida. Vide allotment letter dated 23.5.2007, apartment No. 303 of Tower-5 of the said project was allotted to her on the terms and conditions annexed thereto. The sale consideration for the apartment was agreed at Rs.57,08,000/-. In terms of Clause 4.a(i) of the allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months of the signing of the terms and conditions of the allotment. The possession therefore, ought to have been offered by 23.5.2010. The possession having not been offered, despite the complainant having paid Rs.54,73,369/- to the opposite party, she is before this Commission, seeking refund of the amount.

The opposite party did not file its written version despite service and therefore, its right to file the written version was closed vide order dated 11.3.2019.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavits filed by the complainant by way of evidence. The affidavit and documents filed by the complainant prove the allotment made to her as well as the payment which she made to OP. The learned counsel for the complainant states that no alternative flat was offered to the complainant by the opposite party. Hence, she is entitled to a direction for the refund of the amount paid by her to the OP, alongwith appropriate compensation etc.

The learned counsel for the complainant having taken instructions from the complainant states that the complainant is restricting her claim to the refund of the principal amount paid by them to the OP alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum in terms of clause 4.e which reads as under:

4.e Default:

If for any reason the Developer is not in a position to offer the Apartment altogether, the Developer shall offer the Allottee(s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with Simple Interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation on this account.

The learned counsel for the complainant states that though no written version has been filed in this consumer complaint, several other consumer complaints pertaining to this very project have already been allowed by this Commission.

Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Commission in Dewan Ashwani & Ors. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CC No.282/2012, decided on 07.05.2015. Reliance is also placed upon Consumer Complaint No. 709 of 2015, Ankur Goel Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., decided on 27.07.2016, wherein some additional contentions advanced by the opposite party with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission were rejected by this Commission.

Reliance is also placed upon Neha Suri Vs. M/s Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 977 of 2015 decided on 04.01.2017 and Kiran Agarwal Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. CC No.1487/2016, decided on 31.08.2017.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.54,73,369/- to the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the date of each payment till the date of full refund.

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

(iii) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.