NAVEEN KHATRI Vs. PAREENA INFRASTRUCTURE & 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None was present on behalf of the OPs when the matter is called after lunch. Though a letter was circulated by the learned counsel for the OPs seeking adjournment, the request was declined when the matter was called before lunch and the main counsel appearing on behalf of the OPs was requested to ensure representation on behalf of the OP when the matter is taken after lunch. However, there is no representation on behalf of the OP when the matter is taken up after 3:15PM. Therefore, I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the record.

(2.) The complainant booked a residential flat with the OP-1 Pareena Infrastructure Private Limited in a project, namely, Coban Residences, which OP-1 was to develop in Sector 99A, Gurgaon. Unit No. T-1/902 in the aforesaid project was allotted for a basic sale-price of Rs.1,03,82,802.40ps. The parties then executed an apartment buyers agreement on 03.12.2013 incorporating their respective obligations. In terms of clause of agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the complainant within four years of the start of construction or execution of the agreement whichever was later. Since construction is stated to have started in October 2014, the possession ought to have been delivered by October 2018.

(3.) Vide e-mail dated 14.10.2016, the complainant sought to withdraw from the project and refund of the amount paid by him on account of family emergency, which necessitated immediate requirement of fund. The OP did not refund the amount paid by the complainant despite several reminders sent to the opposite party through e-mail. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice dated 21.11.2016 to the OP requiring it to refund the amount paid by him alongwith damages. Since the said legal notice was not complied, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the entire amount paid by him alongwith compensation interest etc.