Case nº Consumer Case No. 65 Of 2015 With Ia/3292/2015 of NCDRC Cases, August 08, 2016 (case 1. Amit Arora and Anr 2. Kamini Singh and Anr. 3. Raghavendra Kumar Dixit 4. Siddharth Dixit and Anr. Vs Amit Arora and Anr)

Judge:For Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Sahil Sachdeva, Advocate
President:Mr. V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Defense:Consumer Law
Resolution Date:August 08, 2016
Issuing Organization:NCDRC Cases
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

V.K. Jain (Oral)

  1. The complainants in CC No.65 of 2015, namely, Amit Arora and his wife Nidhi Arora booked a residential flat in the project, namely, Unitech Habitat which the opposite party was to develop on plot No.9 in Sector Pi-II (Alistonia Estate), Greater Noida. The booking was made in the year 2006 and allotment to them was made on 25.8.2006. Flat No.1203 in Tower 3 of the aforesaid project was allotted to them for a total consideration of Rs.70,98,576/-. The possession was to be delivered within 3 years of the allotment, i.e., by 25.8.2009. The possession, however, was not delivered despite the complainants having paid a sum of Rs.67,80,269/- to the OP. Being aggrieved, the complainants are before this Commission seeking refund of Rs.1,61,75,173/- constituting Rs.67,80,269/- towards the principal amount paid by them and Rs.93,94,904/- as interest @ 18% p.a. They have also sought Rs.15 lakhs towards damages, besides cost of litigation.

  2. The complainants in CC No.132 of 2015, namely, Kamini Singh and Gaurav Tripathi also booked a residential flat in the aforesaid project and flat No.801 in Tower 3 of the said project was allotted to them, for a total consideration of Rs.67,27,000/-. An allotment letter dated 25.9.2006 was issued to them in this regard. The possession was to be delivered to them within 36 months from the allotment, i.e., by 25.9.2009. They also claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.60,65,026/- to the OP but since possession was not offered to them, they are also before this Commission seeking refund a sum of Rs.1,52,62,426/- comprising Rs.60,65,026/- towards principal amount and Rs.91,97,400/- towards interest @ 18% p.a. They are also seeking a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as damages besides the cost of litigation.

  3. In CC No.259 of 2015, the daughter and son-in-law of the complainant booked a residential flat with the OP and flat No.904 in Tower 1 of the said project was allotted to them. The allotment letter dated 6.11.2006 was then issued to the daughter and son-in-law of the complainant incorporating the contractual obligations of the parties. As per the said allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months of the said allotment, i.e., by 6.11.2009. The complainant purchased the aforesaid allotment/booking from his daughter and son-in-law in the year 2013 and the allotment was endorsed by the OP in his name on 24.10.2013. The total sale consideration in this case was agreed at Rs.66,90,110/- and according to the complainant, a sum of Rs.60,25,369/- has already been paid to the opposite party. Since possession was not offered to him, the complainant is before this Commission seeking a sum of Rs.1,51,62,502/- comprising principal amount of Rs.60,25,369/- and interest @ 18% p.a. quantified at Rs.91,37,133/-. He is also claiming Rs.15 lakhs as damages besides the cost of litigation.

  4. The complainants in CC No.260 of 2015, namely, Siddharth Dixit and his wife Navneet Shergill, booked a residential flat with the OP and flat No.1004 in Tower 1 was allotted to them on 26.10.2006 for a total consideration of Rs.66,90,110/-. They also claim to have paid a total sum of Rs.60,25,369/- to the opposite party. The possession was to be delivered to them within 36 months from the allotment, i.e., by 26.10.2009. Since possession has not been offered to them, they are before this Commission seeking payment of Rs.1,51,62,653/- comprising Rs.60,25,369/- as the principal amount and Rs.91,37,284/- as interest @ 18% p.a. They are also claiming Rs.15 lakhs as damages besides the cost of litigation.

  5. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on several grounds. These are the grounds which the OPs had also taken in CC No.347 of 2014 -- Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided by this Commission on 14.8.2015. The complainants in Swarn Talwar & Ors. (supra) and connected matters also had booked residential apartments with the OP in this very project, i.e., Unitech Habitat which the opposite party was to develop on plot No.9 in Sector Pi-II (Alistonia Estate), Greater Noida. The complainants in the above-referred matters, felt aggrieved on account of the failure of the opposite party to honour its contractual obligation and offer possession of the flats booked by them...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL