RAJ VIDYA KENDER Vs. BENGAL UNITECH UNIVERSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A residential flat in a project namely 'Cascades' in Uniworld City, which the OP was to develop in Kolkata was booked by M/s Afimac Associates Pvt. Ltd. Apartment no. 2003 in Tower No.5 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the aforesaid company for a consideration of Rs.1,17,38,243/-. The said allotment was later purchased by the complainant and the said transaction was duly approved by the OP. As per clause 5(a)(i) of the Buyers Agreement executed between the parties, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the purchaser by 31.03.2010, subject of course to force majeure circumstances. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the apartment has not even been offered to him despite a sum of Rs.1,61,99,883/- having already been paid by the complainant and his predecessor in interest to the OP. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the allotted flat with compensation or in the alternative, refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,61,99,883/- with compensation etc.

(2.) The OP filed its written version contesting the complaint. It is stated that the complaint is sought to be contested on the ground which this Commission has already rejected in a number of consumer complaints including CC No.804 of 2017 Kaushik Guha Vs. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 28.09.2018 and CC No.398 of 2015 Sipra Thomes Vs. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & connected matters decided on 19.05.2016. Therefore, the said grounds need not be considered afresh in this consumer complaint.

(3.) The decision of this Commission in Sipra Thomes , to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: