R D IMPEX Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The KSR Trading Pvt. Ltd. booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely 'Unitech South Park', which the opposite party was to develop in Sector -70 of Gurgaon. Vide allotment letter dated 25.03.2011, a residential flat bearing No. 1402 in Block B-4 of the above- referred project was allotted to the said company for a consideration of Rs.9593401/- . The allottee then executed an agreement dated 14.6.2011 with the OP, incorporating their respective obligations in respect to the aforesaid allotment. The said allotment was thereafter purchased by another company Shree Shyam Baba Exim Pvt. Ltd. and the transfer of allotment was duly approved by the OP vide its letter dated 7.5.2011. The complainant, namely, R.D. Impex which is stated to be a proprietorship concern of one Mr. Arun Gupta purchased the aforesaid flat from Shree Shyam Baba Exim Pvt. Ltd. and the transfer of the allotment in his name was approved by the OP vide its letter dated 16.12.2015. As per Clause 4(a)(i) of the agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the complainant within 36 months of its execution. The possession therefore ought to have been offered by 14.6.2014. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession was not offered to him at any point of time, despite payment of Rs.3072381/- to the opposite party towards the price of the flat. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount along with interest etc.

(2.) The opposite party did not file its written version despite service and its right to file the said affidavit was closed vide order dated 8.2.2018. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavit filed by the complainant by way of evidence.

(3.) The affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant prove the initial allotment as well as the transfer of the allotment to the complainant. The apartment in question, according to the complainant was acquired by him for his personal use. Even otherwise, the complainant being a proprietorship concern is only a trade name adopted by its proprietor Mr. Arun Gupta. The possession of the apartment ought to have been offered to the complainant on or before 14.6.2014. Since the possession has not been offered to him despite substantial amount having already been paid to the OP, he is entitled to seek refund of the entire amount paid to the OP along with appropriate compensation.