LUV BHASIN Vs. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, namely Luv Bhasin booked a residential villa with the opposite party in a project, namely, Alder Grove, Nirvana Country II which the opposite party was to develop in sector 71 & 72 of Gurgaon. The sale consideration for the aforesaid villa was agreed at Rs.3,07,76,204/- and the possession was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of the Buyers Agreement, which came to be executed on 2.4.2010. Thus the possession of the villa ought to have been offered by 2.4.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that despite his having paid a total sum of Rs.3,02,18,238/-, the opposite party has failed to offer possession of the villa allotted to him. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the villa allotted to him or in the alternative payment of a sum of Rs.5,25,20,000/- that being the current market value of a same house.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on the same grounds which this Commission has already rejected in C.C. No.382 of 2015 - Aditya Mishra & Anr. v. M/s Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 03.05.2016 and C.C. No.197 of 2015, Ved Prakash Saini v. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided on 29.2016 . The complainant in Ved Prakash Saini (supra) had booked a residential villa in this very project and since the opposite party failed to offer of the villa allotted to him, he approached this Commission by way of a complaint. Allowing the complaint relying upon its decision in Aditya Mishra (supra), this Commission interalia held and observed as under :-

(3.) Vide order dated 02.5.2016, this Commission disposed of a number of Consumer Complaints namely Cap. Gurtaj Singh Sahni v. Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.603 of 2014 and connected matter, where the opposite party has delayed the delivery of the possession in the project namely Espace Premier, Unitech Nirvana Country-2, Gurgaon, Haryana, in the same Colony Nirvana Country II in Sector 71 and 72 of Gurgaon. Those complaints were resisted on almost identical grounds. Rejecting such contentions, this Commission inter-alia observed and held as under: