SUNDEEP GUPTA Vs. UNITECH LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project, namely, 'Fresco Nirvana Country', which the opposite party was to develop in Gurgaon and flat No.1002 in the aforesaid project was allotted to him vide letter dated 05.12.2005, for a consideration of Rs.39,64,643/-. The parties then entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 19.12.2005 incorporating their respective obligations. In terms of clause 4.a. of the Buyers Agreement, the possession was to be delivered to the complainant by June 2008. Vide letter dated 10.06.2014, the opposite party informed the complainant that they were in the process of handing over the flat. He was asked to make additional payment as per the Statement of Accounts annexed to the said letter and furnish documents mentioned therein in order to enable the opposite party to handover physical possession of the flat. It was also stated in the said letter that the opposite party intended to do final coat of paint on the entire wall and polishing, fixing of CPC fittings after he had collected the possession letter and that the actual physical possession shall be handed over within 45 days of the submission of the possession letter. The case of the complainant is that, he accompanied by his representative Neeru Kataria visited the flat and found the construction to be inadequate and deficient. No letter, however, was sent by the complainant to the opposite party intimating any defect or deficiency in the flat. Vide email dated 12.09.2014, the opposite party informed the complainant that Tower-3 in which his flat situated was planning to be offered for possession by 4th quarter of 2014. The aforesaid letter of the opposite party clearly shows that the construction of the flat was not complete at the time letter dated 10.06.2014 was written and that is why an extended deadline for delivery of possession was given in the email dated 12.09.2014. Thereafter, no letter was sent by the opposite party offering possession of the flat allotted to him. Since possession of the flat was not delivered to him, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking possession of the flat along with compensation etc.

(2.) The complainant, namely, Priyanka Gupta booked a residential flat with the opposite party in the same project, namely, 'Fresco Nirvana Country' and vide allotment letter dated 24.11.2005, flat No.03-11-1102 was allotted to her for a consideration of Rs.37,64,308/-. She also entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 13.12.2005. The said agreement contained terms and conditions identical to the terms and conditions contained the Buyers Agreement subject matter of CC No.376 of 2015. A letter dated 15.06.2015 was sent by the opposite party stating that they were in the process of handing over of the flat in 'Fresco Nirvana Country' and requiring her to remit the payment as per the Statement of Accounts annexed to the said letter and furnish documents described therein. The case of the complainant is that though the possession of the allotted flat had not been offered to her by that time she along with her representative Neeru Kataria visited the said flat on 04.09.2014 when she accompanied her husband Sundeep Gupta, complainant in CC No.376 of 2015 for inspection of the flat allotted to Mr. Sundeep Gupta, the construction of flat was not complete at the time it was inspected by her. This seems to be correct since the OP itself has relied upon a letter dated 15.6.2015 as far as offering possession of the allotted flat is concerned. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that even at the time letter dated 15.06.2015 was issued to the complainant, the flat was in shambles and was not fit for occupation. Since possession of the flat has not been delivered to her, the complainant Priyanka Gupta is also before this Commission by way of this consumer complaint seeking possession of the flat allotted to her along with compensation etc.

(3.) The complaint according to the learned counsel for the complainants, has been resisted by the opposite party on the pleas which this Commission has already rejected in a number of consumer complaints including Satish Kumar Pandey And Ant. Vs. Unitech Ltd. And Connected matters - Consumer Complaint No.427 of 2014 decided on 8.6.2015 and Sumeet Singh Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. And Anr. Consumer Complaint No.13 of 2015 and connected matters decided on 18.1.2016. The said grounds were also rejected by this Commission in Vineet Jain And Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd.And Anr. in Consumer Complaint No.135 of 2014 decided on 24.5.2016. This order of this Commission in Sumeet Singh (supra) to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-