RAVI MARWAH Vs. UNITECH RELIABLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in Consumer Complaint No. 535 of 2015 namely Ravi Marwah and Mrs. Aarty Marwah booked a residential flat in a project namely 'Unitech Verve', which the opposite party was to develop in Greater Noida. Initially the booking was made in another project namely 'Capella' but, later on it was transferred to Unitech Verve, since the opposite party had shelved the 'Capella'. The opposite party allotted Apartment No.1203, admeasuring 1577 sq. ft. in the aforesaid project to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.59,63,666/ - out of which Rs.49,71,662/ - was paid by the complainants in the year 2008. As per the Buyers' Agreement executed between the parties, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 12 months of the signing of the said agreement, which came to be executed on 10.5.2011. The possession therefore, ought to have been delivered to the aforesaid complainants by 10.5.2012. The grievance of the complainants is that the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the flat booked by them though, more than three years from the committed date of possession have already expired. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission, seeking refund of the principal amount paid by them, along with interest @ 18% per annum, which comes to Rs.62,64,294/ -, thereby making an aggregate of Rs.1,12,35,956/ - as on the date of filing of this complaint.

(2.) The complainants in Consumer Complaint No. 536 of 2015 namely Amit Bhatia and Mr. Bhawna Bhatia booked a residential flat in the project 'Unitech Verve' in May, 2008. The sale consideration agreed for the sale of the said flat was Rs.57,51,210/ - out of which Rs.51,35,040/ - already stands paid to the opposite party in the year 2008 itself. In their case, the possession was to be delivered within 21 months from the date of the agreement which was executed on 24.7.2008, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 24.4.2010. Since the possession was not offered to them, they are also seeking refund of the amount paid by them, along with interest @ 18% per annum and the aggregate of the principal sum paid by them and simple interest calculated @ 18% per annum comes to more than Rupees one crore.

(3.) The complaints have been resisted on several grounds but all those grounds have repeatedly rejected by this Commission in a number of consumer complaints. One of the objections taken by the opposite party is that since the original cost of the flat was less than Rs. One crore each in both the complaints, the complainants ought to have approached the State Commission instead of approaching this Commission. Reference in this regard is made to the provisions contained in Section 21(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act.