SAURABH SACHDEV Vs. M/S.UNITECH LIMITED.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in these matters are the allottees of residential flats in a project namely "Anthea Floors", which the opposite party Unitech Ltd. was to develop in Gurgaon. Their grievance is that in terms of Clause 4(a)(i) of the Buyers Agreement, the possession of the flats was to be delivered to them within thirty-six months of the execution of the said agreement, but the opposite party has failed to offer the said possession despite they having made substantial payment to the opposite party. The following are the details of the allotment made to the complainant, the date of allotment, the date of execution of the Buyers Agreement, the sale consideration agreed to be paid for the flats and the payment alleged to have been made by the complainants to the opposite party:

(2.) The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions from the complainants that in view of Clause 4e. of the Buyers Agreement, the complainants are restricting their claims to the refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum and cost of litigation. Clause 4e. of the Buyers Agreement reads as under:

(3.) The learned counsel for the complainants also submits that the grounds on which the complaint has been resisted have already been rejected by this Commission in several decisions including CC/591/2015 Dr. Sunil Tuli Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. decided on 21.9.2016, CC/359/2015 Arun Datta Vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 6.4.2016 and CC/1232/2015 Ravikant Bhatt Vs. Unitech Ltd., decided on 22.9.2016 with respect to allotment of residential flats in this very project. The decision of this Commission in Ravikant Bhatt (supra) to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: