MAJOR (RETD) JAIDEEP SINGH Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely Espace Premier Nirvana Country-2 which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 70 of Gurgaon. Vide allotment letter dated 24.3.2012, house No. B 038 in the above referred project was allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 4,37,98,966/-. The parties then entered into a buyer's agreement dated 19.4.2012 incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid transactions. In terms of Clause 4a (i) of the agreement, the possession of the villa was to be delivered to the complainant within 24 months, meaning thereby that the said possession ought to have been delivered by 19.4.2014. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the villa has not been delivered to him despite he having already paid Rs. 1,05,53,125/- directly to the opposite party and Rs.3,32,45,841/- through his banker. The complainant is therefore before this Commission seeking refund of the entire amount paid by him to the opposite party along with compensation etc.

(2.) The opposite party did not file its written version despite service and therefore its right to file the written version was closed vide order dated 06.2.2017. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the affidavit filed by the complainant by way of evidence. The affidavit filed by the complainant coupled with the documents filed by him prove the allotment made to him as well as the payment alleged to have been made by him to the opposite party directly as well as through his banker. The buyer's agreement executed between the parties would show that the possession ought to have been delivered by 19.4.2014. The possession having not been offered, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid by him along with compensation in the form of simple interest.

(3.) The learned counsel for the complainant submits that though no written version has been filed in this case, several other consumer complaints in respect of the allotment made in this very project have already been allowed by this Commission. A reference in this regard is made to Sudhanshu Pokhriyal Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., CC No. 368 of 2015 decided on 03.5.2017. The order of this Commission in Sudhanshu, to the extent it is relevant reads as under: