DEVIKA SAPRA Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Deepika Sapra booked a residential villa with the OP in a project namely 'Alder Grove' Nirvana Country-2 which the OP was to construct in Gurgaon. Vide allotment letter dated 05.08.2010, house no. AG-0143 in the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.2,16,75,961/-. The parties then executed a buyers agreement dated 16.08.2010 incorporating their respective obligations, in respect of the aforesaid transaction. In terms of clause 4(a)(i) of the said agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 24 months of its execution. The possession therefore, ought to have been delivered by 16.08.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that a possession was not offered to her at any point of time despite she having already paid Rs.86,70,384/- to the OP. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith compensation etc.

(2.) The OP did not file its written version despite service and therefore, its right to file the said written version was closed vide order dated 30.01.2017. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the complainant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the complainant submits that though no written version has been filed in this consumer complaint, some other consumer complaints resisting the complainants seeking possession of the villas in this very project have already been allowed by this Commission after rejecting the grounds on which the said complaints were resisted. A reference in this regard is made to Aditya Mishra & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. CC No. 382 of 2015 and connected matters decided on 03.05.2016, Ved Prakash Saini Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. CC No. 197 of 2015 decided on 22.09.2016 and CC No. 1530 of 2016 Madhu Garg Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided on 11.10.2017.