ABHISHEK ROY Vs. M/S. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant complaint has been filed jointly by three sets of complainants, namely, Abhishek Roy, (complainant No.1), Amit Kumar (complainant No.2) and Rakesh Kumar and his wife Sushma Himanshu (complainants No.3 & 4). Allegations in the joint complaint are that the aforesaid three sets of complainants booked separate flats with the opposite party in the development project Unitech Horizon to be constructed on plot No.6, Sector PI-2, Alistonia Estate, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged in the complaint that opposite party has committed deficiency in service inasmuch as it has failed to deliver the possession of the subject flats to the complainants within the agreed time line despite of having received almost 95% of the agreed consideration amount. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complainants have filed joint complaint seeking following reliefs: -

(2.) Along with the complaint, an application under Sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved seeking permission to pursue the joint complaint. On 14.7.2016 the matter came up for admission before the predecessor Bench presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice J.M. Malik. The Bench recorded the following proceedings: -

(3.) When the matter came up before this Bench on 1.2017 it was noticed that the aforesaid order was a non-speaking order without any reference to the provisions of Sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Act and instead of granting a specific permission to proceed with the joint complaint it was recorded that the case is admissible under Sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Act. As the aforesaid order was not in conformity with the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Commission, it was decided to rehear the complainant with regard to the permission under Sec. 12 (1) (c) of the Ac.