UNITECH LIMITED Vs. VIVEK PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "the State Commission") dated 14.1.2015 whereby the State Commission directed the appellant/opposite party as under: -

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that in June, 2006 the respondent/complainant booked apartment measuring 1730 sq. ft. in the project being developed by the appellant/opposite party. The allotment letter pursuant to the booking was issued on 11.9.2006. The complainant as per terms of the allotment contract till 28.02.2009 paid a sum of Rs.58,06,462/ - against the consideration amount in instalments. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, the possession of the flat, complete in all respects was supposed to be delivered within three years. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party instead of completing the project diverted the money received from him and the others to his other commercial project. Almost eight years have gone by but opposite party has failed to deliver the possession of flat. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, complainant filed the consumer complaint.

(3.) THE State Commission, after admitting the complaint vide proceedings dated 10.9.2013 directed issue of notice to the opposite party fixing the date of hearing as 8.11.2013. On 8.11.2013 the matter was adjourned to 31.1.2014. On 31.1.2014 counsel for the opposite party appeared and filed Vakalatnama. The State Commission directed the appellant / opposite party to file written statement and also directed the parties to file their affidavit evidence and adjourned the matter to 11.03.2014. The opposite party failed to file its written statement as also the affidavit evidence. Therefore, on the application under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) being moved by the complainant, the State Commission closed the right of the opposite party to file written statement and proceeded to hear the arguments and disposed of the complaint vide impugned order.