MAYANK MALIK Vs. UNITEH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The cost has not been paid by the OP. As a result, the delay in filing the written version does not stand condoned. The right of the OP to file the written version therefore, stands closed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the complainant states that these matters are covered by earlier decisions of this Commission including the decision in CC No.244 of 2015 Brajesh Kumar Sengar & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. decided on 04.01.2017 and CC No.476 of 2014 Satish Dhingra & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. and connected matters decided on 14.02.2017.

(3.) The complainant in CC No. 2073 of 2016 had booked a residential flat in the project namely "Fresco" which the OP had to develop in Nirvana Country, Gurgaon and a flat bearing no. 0002 in Tower No. 17 was allotted to him for a consideration of Rs.1,01,73,080/-. The possession was to be delivered by third quarter of 2011 in terms of clause 4(a) of the agreement executed between the parties on 25.11.2010. The grievance of the complainant is that despite he having already paid Rs.1,01,73,080/- to the OP, the possession has not been delivered to him. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the aforesaid flat alongwith compensation etc.