ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked an independent floor with the opposite party namely Unitech Ltd. , in a project namely "Unitech South City-II". Flat No. F023 in Tower B in Sector-II was allotted to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,14,94,000/-. The parties then executed a sale agreement dated 28. 12. 2010, incorporating their respective obligations. In terms of clause 4(a)(i) of the said agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 24 months of its execution, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 28. 12. 2012. The possession having not been delivered, the complainant approached this Commission by way of this consumer complaint. However, the possession of the flat has been delivered to the complainant during pendency of this complaint on 26. 7. 2017. the complaint therefore survives only to the extent of compensation for the delay in delivery of the possession is concerned.

(2.) The opposite party has filed written version contesting the consumer complaint but the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complaint is sought to be contested on the grounds which this Commission has rejected in a number of consumer complaint, including CC No. 56 of 2015 Kamlesh Chichra Vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 26. 09. 2016 and CC No. 1184 of 2015 Bharti Kakkar Vs. Unitech Limited decided on 04. 01. 2017 as also Monika Goel Vs. Unitech Ltd. CC 1908 of 2016 decided on 19. 01. 2018. The decision in Monica Goel , to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

(3.) The grounds on which the complaint has been resisted by the OP have repeatedly been rejected by this Commission in a large number of consumer complaints including CC No. 382 of 2015 Aditya Mishra & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 0 05. 2016. The following view taken by this Commission is relevant for the purpose of deciding this complaint: