NEENA ZUTSHI Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant namely Neena Zutshi booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely 'Vistas' which the opposite party is developing in Sector-70 of Gurgaon. Pursuant to the transaction between the parties, a sale agreement dated 07.06.2010 was executed between them in respect of apartment No.0004 in Block A, Tower 02, to be sold for a consideration of Rs.61,73,215/-. As per Clause 4(a)(i) of the said agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months of its execution. The possession therefore ought to have been delivered by 7th June, 2013. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the flat was not offered to her despite she having already paid a sum of Rs.58,49,504/- to the opposite party. The complainant is therefore before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount with compensation.

(2.) The opposite party did not file its written version and its right to file the said written version was closed vide order dated 18.01.2018.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the complainant. No one is present for the opposite party when the matter is called. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that though no written version has been filed in this Consumer Complaint, several other Consumer Complaints with respect to allotment of flats in this very project have already been allowed by this Commission, rejecting the plea on which the said Consumer Complaints were contested. A reference in this regard is made in CC/1191/2015 -Vishal Mehta & Ors. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited decided on 19.07.2017 referring to an earlier decision of this Commission in CC/427/2014 Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Anr. and connected matters, decided on 08.06.2015.