SANJEEV MALHOTRA; ADITYA MALHOTRA Vs. UNITECH ACASIA PROJECTS PVT LTD ; UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD ; CIG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants booked a residential apartment with the opposite party in a project, namely, 'Burgundy' which the opposite party was to develop in Sectors 96 to 98 at Noida in U.P. The apartment No.1202 on Level 12 in Tower-03 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainants for a consideration of Rs.41081380/-. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment executed between the parties, the possession for carrying out interiors and fit outs was to be offered within 42 months thereof, meaning thereby that the same ought to have been offered by 6.11.2016. The grievance of the complainants is that despite they having paid Rs.22827643/- to the opposite party, the possession of the aforesaid apartment has not been offered to them. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount along with compensation etc.

(2.) The OP did not file the written version despite having been served on 10.4.2017. The right of the opposite party to file the written version was, therefore, closed vide order dated 27.6.2017. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the evidence filed by the complainants on affidavit.

(3.) The issue involved in this complaint is is no more res-integra, being covered by several decisions of this Commission, including Consumer Complaint No.307 of 2015 Pramod Yadav Vs. Unitech Hi-tech Developers Ltd. decided on 6.1.2017.