ANSHU SHRIVASTAVA Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project, namely, Unitech Habitat, Greater Noida which the said opposite party was to develop in Greater Noida. The complainants were allotted Unit No.304, measuring 2096 sq.ft., on the 3rd Floor in Tower-18 of the aforesaid project Plot No.9 in Sector Pi-II of Greater Noida. The total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.68,29,952/-, out of which the complainants have already paid a sum of Rs.62,12,807/- to the opposite party. In order to make payment to the opposite party, the complainants took a housing loan of Rs.55 lakhs from HDFC Ltd. The loan was taken on a floating rate of interest which at the time of filing of the complaint was 12.75% per annum.

(2.) The complaint has been opposed by the opposite party on several grounds including that since the amount paid by the complainants is only Rs.62,12,807/-, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, the opposite party has admitted the transaction with the complainants and has claimed that in the event of delay, the complainants are entitled only to the compensation specified in clause 4.c of the allotment letter. It is also pointed out in the reply filed by the opposite party that vide letter dated 21.8.2012, they had informed the complainants that they were hoping to release Tower-18 of this project by the 4th Quarter of 2012, barring any unforeseen circumstances and had also offered allotment of ready to move in unit in released Towers 11 -17 of the said project to them but the complainants did not show any interest in accepting the said alternative allotment. The opposite party has also sought to rely upon clause 4.e of the allotment letter which provides for offer of alternative property or refund with simple interest @ 10% per annum in case the developer is not in a position to offer the apartment altogether. The delay in offering possession is sought to be justified on the ground that it had happened due to recession in the market on account of economic meltdown in the real estate, which was a reason beyond the control of the opposite party.

(3.) As regards, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the complaint, the following view taken by this Commission in C.C. No.347 of 2014 - Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd., decided on 14th August 2015, is relevant :-