PREETI TANEJA Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CC 1688 of 2016

(2.) The opposite party has resisted some of the complaints, filing a written version on the grounds which this Commission has earlier rejected in a number of consumer complaints including Consumer Complaint No. 368 of 2015 Sudhanshu Pokhriyal v. M/s. Unitech Ltd., decided on 03.5.2017 and Consumer Complaint No. 603 of 2014 Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni v. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 05.2016. Since the grounds on which some of these complaints have been contested have already been rejected by this Commission, the said grounds need not be discussed again.

(3.) The next question which arises for consideration is as to what relief the complainants are entitled in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The learned counsel for the complainants states, on instructions from the complainants, that they are keen to have possession of their respective residential units, they having purchased the same for their personal residence and therefore, are pressing for the said possession, along with compensation in the form of simple interest. He further states that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, the complainants will be satisfied if they are paid compensation in the form of simple interest @ 8% per annum but in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court awards a higher compensation in a matter relating to this very project, along with a direction for delivery of possession, the complainants should be entitled to such a higher compensation.