JALAJ ANAND Vs. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jalaj Anand, the complainant herein had booked apartment No. 1102 having super area of 2098 sq.ft. on the 11th floor of Tower No. 3 of Group Housing Development Project "Unitech Habitat" situated at plot No. 9, Sector Pi-II ( Alistonia Estate), Greater Noida to be developed by the opposite party. The relevant allotment letter and agreements were executed between the parties whereby the opposite party had agreed to deliver possession of the subject apartment to the complainant within 36 months from the date of agreement. The total consideration amount agreed by the parties was 72,03,476/-. It is the case of the complainant that he has paid total sum of 68,85,176/- to the opposite party against the agreed consideration amount. Despite that opposite party has failed to complete the construction and deliver possession of the apartment even seven years after expiry of stipulated date of delivery of possession i.e.12.10.2009. Claiming failure of the opposite party to deliver possession within the requisite period, the complainant has filed the above noted consumer complaint seeking following prayer:

(2.) The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint has filed written statement wherein opposite party has admitted the allotment of the subject apartment to complainant. It is also admitted that as per the allotment agreement, the total consideration for the apartment was 72,03,476/- which was payable in instalments as per payment plan. It is also not in dispute that complainant has paid 68,85,176/- against the consideration amount. However, opposite Party in its written statement has taken a preliminary objection that the instant complaint is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission because the amount paid by the complainant against the consideration value is much less than rupees one crore. On merits, the plea of the opposite party is that it was prevented from delivering possession of the flat to the complainant because of circumstances beyond its control. It is alleged that opposite party could not perform its part of the contract because of the Force Majeure circumstances, namely:

(3.) The complainant and the opposite party have filed affidavit evidence in support of their case. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.