HEMANT SINGH Vs. UNITECH HI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In CC/2140/2016, the complainants Hemant Singh and Mala Singh booked a residential flat with the opposite parties in a project namely 'Unitech Golf and Country Club, which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 96, 97 and 98 of Noida. Vide provisional allotment letter dated 21.7.2007, apartment No. 1901 of the aforesaid project in Tower-1 Block-3 was allotted to them for a total consideration of Rs. 2,05,98,574/- (Customer Code No. UG 0106). The aforesaid provisional allotment was followed by an allotment letter dated 20.8.2007 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. As per Clause 5(a)(i) of the said terms and conditions, the possession of the apartment was expected to be delivered by 30.9.2010, subject to force majeure circumstances. The grievance of the complainants is that the possession of the allotted apartment has not even been offered to them despite they having already paid a sum of Rs. 1,36,31,031/- to the opposite party. It would be pertinent to note here that the opposite party had later changed the specifications of the flat and reduced the cost of the apartment to Rs. 1,38,73,664/-. The complainants are now before this Commission, seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party, along with compensation etc.

(2.) In CC/2141/2016, the complainants Renuka Tandon and Wg. Cdr. Rajinder Tandon booked a residential flat with the opposite party namely Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., in a project namely 'Amber in Unitech Golf and Country Club) (formerly known as Unitech Grande), which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 96, 97 and 98 of Noida. Vide allotment letter dated 28.6.2011, apartment No. 0503 of the aforesaid project in Tower-5 was allotted to them on the terms and conditions annexed thereto. (Customer Code No. UG 0401U). The sale consideration for the flat was agreed at Rs. 1,48,32,109/-. As per Clause 5(a)(i) of the said terms and conditions executed on 03.12.2011, the possession of the was to be delivered with 24 months thereof, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 03.12.2013. The grievance of the complainants is that the possession of the allotted apartment has not even been offered to them despite they having already paid a sum of Rs. 1,46,37,195/- to the opposite party. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount paid by them to the opposite party, along with compensation etc. The learned counsel for the complainant states at the very outset that he is pressing this complaint only against Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd. and the amended Memo of parties, impleading the aforesaid company is stated to have already been filed.

(3.) In CC/2142/2016, the complainants Vikram Krishan Kapur and Mrs. Mona Kapur booked a residential flat in the aforesaid project and vide letter dated 06.10.2007, Apartment No. 2202 in Tower No.2 in Block-3 was allotted to them on the terms and conditions executed between the parties on 08.11.2007. (Customer Code No. UG 0155). The sale consideration for the flat was fixed at Rs. 2,31,10,255/-. The possession in terms of Clause 5(a)(i) of the said terms and conditions was to be delivered with 40 months thereof, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 08.3.2011. The sale consideration was later reduced to Rs. 1.48,29,714/- plus other charges on account of change in the specifications. The grievance of the complainants is that the possession of the allotted apartment has even been offered to them despite they having already paid a sum of Rs. 2,21,91,307/- to the opposite party, thereby making excess payment to the builder. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount paid by them to the opposite party, along with compensation etc.