LAWS(NCD)-2016-8-84

AMAN ROY CHOWDHURY & ANR Vs. UNITECH LTD

Decided On August 09, 2016
Aman Roy Chowdhury And Anr Appellant
V/S
UNITECH LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant namely Mr. Aman Roy Chowdhury and his wife Mrs. Vasundhara Singh Roy Chowdhury booked, in the year 2006, a residential apartment in the Complex namely "Unitech Habitat" which the opposite party was to develop on plot No.9 in Sector Pi-II (Alistonia Estate), Greater Noida and on 17.10.2006, Flat No. 002, Ground Floor in HBTN Tower 10 admeasuring 194.91 sq. mtrs. (2098 sq. ft. approx.). The aforesaid flat was allotted to them for a total consideration of Rs. 67,66,731/-. The possession was to be delivered within 36 months thereof. The possession, however, was not delivered despite the complainants having paid the entire consideration of Rs. 67,66,731/- to the OP. Being aggrieved, the complainants are before this Commission seeking refund of Rs.67,66,731/- constituting of Rs.91,68,901/- towards interest @ 18% p.a. alongwith the principal amount paid by them. They have also sought Rs.15,00,000/- towards damages, harassment and mental agony.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on several grounds. These are the grounds which the OPs had also taken in CC No.347 of 2014 Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters, decided by this Commission on 14.8.2015. The complainants in Swarn Talwar & Ors. and connected matters also had booked residential apartments with the OP in this very project, i.e., Unitech Habitat which the opposite party was to develop on plot No.9 in Sector Pi-II (Alistonia Estate), Greater Noida. The complainants in the above-referred matters, felt aggrieved on account of the failure of the opposite party to honour its contractual obligation and offer possession of the flats booked by them. Therefore, they approached this Commission by way of separate consumer complaints seeking refund of the amount paid by them along with interest @ 18% p.a. They also sought damages and cost of litigation besides rent for the period the possession was delayed. The complaints were resisted by the OP primarily on the grounds that (i) the amount paid by the complainants being less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in each case, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, (ii) as per clause 4(c) of the allotment letter the opposite party is required to pay only the holding charges calculated at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area for the period of delay in offering delivery of the flat beyond the agreed period, (iii) the delay is attributable to a recession in the economy, affecting the availability of the resources such as labour and raw materials, (iv) there was major disruption in the construction activity of the opposite party due to massive agitation and strikes by farmers whose lands were acquired by NOIDA, which resulted in slackening and availability of supply of raw material, (v) there was acute shortage of labour, underground water and raw material besides delayed approval from Greater Noida Authority and (vi) In terms of clause 4(e) of the allotment letter the opposite party is entitled either to offer an alternative property or refund the amount paid by the complainant with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum without damages or other compensation. It was also alleged that notification dated 14-09-2006 issued by Government of India imposed restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities or on the extension or modernization of the existing projects without prior environmental clearances and the procedure for obtaining such clearances led to delay in construction schedule. It was also claimed that the Dharna by farmers who were agitated on account of acquisition of their land, in front of the projects of various builders also halted the construction work and there was default in payment of installments by several flat buyers, dues against whom amounted to nearly Rs.57,00,00,000/-.

(3.) Rejecting all the contentions advanced by the opposite party, this Commission directed it to refund the amount paid to it by the complainants along with compensation in the form of simple interest on that amount @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The payment was directed to be made within six weeks.