VIPIN TAYAL Vs. UNITECH LTD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in these matters purchased residential plots from the opposite party in the Mega Township, Uniworld City, Sector 106, Mohali, Punjab. The consideration was fixed at Rs.59,61,805/-, Rs.71,58,060/-, Rs.74,72,010, Rs.1,07, 23,342/-, Rs.1,02,61,391/-, Rs.78,91,806/- and the complainants paid Rs.59,01,805/-, Rs.70,26,845/-, Rs.72,18,060/-, Rs.1,14,63,237/-, Rs.94,72,046/-, Rs.72,60,910/- in C.C. Nos.903/2015, 904/2015, 909/2015, 1081/2015, 1082/2015 and 1083/2015 respectively. The possession was to be delivered within 36 months from 30.05.2008 i.e. by 30.05.2011 in CC/903/2015, within 36 months from 16.05.2008 i.e. by 16.05.2011 in CC/904/2015, within 36 months from 16.05.2008 i.e. by 16.05.2011 in CC/905/2015, within 36 months from 26.02.2010 i.e. by 26.02.2013 in CC/1081/2015, within 18 months from 13.06.2011 i.e. by 13.12.2012 in CC/1082/2015 and CC/1083/2015. The grievance of the complainants is that despite substantial payments having already been made by them, the opposite party has failed to deliver the possession of the plots booked by them. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that the development is far from complete despite the fact that the first booking was made in the year 2008 and more than 7 years from the said booking have already expired. The complainants are not willing to wait any more for delivery of possession of the plots booked by them and therefore are before this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party along with interest on that amount @ 18% p.a.

(2.) The opposite party did not file its reply/written version to the complaint within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of admission of complaint or even within 45 days from the date of said service. Therefore, vide order dated 15.01.2016, relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 of 2013, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., dated 04.12.2015, the right of the opposite party to file its written version/reply was closed. The parties however were directed to file their written synopsis. The complainants have filed their written synopsis but the opposite party has failed to even file its written synopsis.

(3.) On the second last date of hearing, the learned counsel for the complainants stated on instructions that in order to bring an early closer to the dispute between the parties, the complainants were ready to accept the refund along with simple interest @ 12 p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The learned counsel for the opposite party was asked to seek instructions as to how much interest the opposite party was willing to pay while refunding the principal amount to the complainants. The matter was adjourned to 06.04.2016. On that date, the complainants reiterated that with a view to bring an early closer to the dispute and to avoid any other litigation, they were ready to accept the refund along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% p.a. The learned counsel for the opposite party was again asked to take instructions in this regard. The learned counsel who appears for the opposite party states that the opposite party is not in a position to refund the principal amount even along with simple interest @ 12% p.a. He further states that the opposite party has no offer to make as far as refund of the principal amount along with interest is concerned.