MEENA GUPTA Vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant herein has filed the consumer complaint against opposite party alleging that on being shown the brochure of the forthcoming project of the opposite party by its representative, the complainant entered into an agreement for allotment of residential apartment in 'Unitech Horizon', Plot No.6, Sector P1-2, Alistonia Estate, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that the representative of the opposite party assured the complainant that opposite party is in the process of short listing / booking of advance registration of the aforesaid project and that apartment will be allotted on 'First Come First Serve Basis" and that it was assured by the opposite party that project will be constructed within a short span of time. Relying on the aforesaid assurances, the complainant applied for allotment of an apartment and he was allotted apartment no.0901 on 9th floor in Tower 21 having super area of 1705 sq. ft in the aforesaid Group Housing Complex. The relevant allotment letter and agreements were executed between the parties whereby the opposite party had agreed to deliver possession of the subject apartment to the complainant by November 2008 from the date of agreement. The total consideration amount agreed by the parties was Rs.49,42,755/-. It is the case of the complainant that she paid total sum of Rs.47,44,452/- to the opposite party against the agreed consideration amount. Despite that opposite party has failed to complete the construction and deliver possession of the apartment after expiry of stipulated date of delivery of possession. It is alleged that complainant visited the site of construction and on making enquiries from the technical staff on the site, complainant was informed that construction of Tower No.21 shall take at-least 9-12 months. As a matter of fact, no major construction activity has been undertaken by the opposite party at the project site. Claiming failure of the opposite party to construct and deliver possession of the allotted apartment to be deficiency in service, the complainant has raised the consumer dispute seeking the following prayer:

(2.) Opposite party despite service of notice of the complaint has failed to file written statement within the limitation provided under section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No request for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing written statement was made. Therefore, right of the opposite party to file written statement was closed vide proceedings dated 31.10.2017.

(3.) Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint.