Case nº Consumer Case No. 1184 Of 2015 of NCDRC Cases, January 04, 2017 (case 1. Bharti Kakkar and Anr. 2. Saurabh Sachdeva Vs 1. Unitech Limited and Anr. 2. Pioneer Urban Land Infrastructure Ltd)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate and For Respondents: Mrs. Navneet S. Sehgal, Advocate and Dr. Shweta Bajaj, Advocate
PresidentMr. V.K. Jain,Presiding Member
Resolution DateJanuary 04, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases

Order:

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member (Oral)

The complainants who are husband and wife booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project, namely, South City-2 which the opposite party is developing in Gurgaon. Vide letter dated 11.2.2012, a residential Flat No.S-184 in Block-1 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the them for a total consideration of Rs.1,11,93,537/-. The allotment was followed by execution of a Buyers Agreement dated 28.4.2012. As per clause 4.a of the said agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainants within 24 months of the date on which the said agreement was executed. Clause 4.e of the Buyers Agreement provided for the refund of the amount in full with interest @ 10% p.a. without any further liability in case the OP was unable to offer the flat to the complainants. The complainants have already paid a sum of Rs.34,96,932/- to the OPs but the possession of the flat has not been offered to them. Being aggrieved, they are before this Commission seeking possession of the flat in question or in the alternative refund of the amount paid by them along with interest @ 18% p.a. They are also seeking compensation quantified at Rs.15 lakhs along with rent at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month from the committed date of delivery.

  1. The complaint has been resisted by the OP on the very same grounds which this Commission has rejected in a number of consumer complaints including CC No.56 of 2015 -- Kamlesh Chichra Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided on 26.9.2016. The order of this Commission dated 26.9.2016 in Kamlesh Chichra (supra) to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

    2. The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has admitted the allotment made to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.1,01,06,760/-. The payment made by him has also been admitted. It is stated in the reply that the construction could not be completed due to reasons beyond the control of the OP, since

    (i) There was a slump in the real estate industry.

    (ii) There was recession in the economy.

    (iii) There was shortage of labour due to Commonwealth Games.

    (iv) Punjab & Haryana High Court had stopped the usage of ground water for construction purpose vide its order dated 16.07.2012.

    (v) A notification dated 14.09.1999 was issued by Ministry of Environment & Forests barring manufacture of clay bricks within a radius of 50 kms from Thermal Power Plants without mixing at least 25% of the soil.

    (vi) There was ban on mining in the entire Aravali region vide order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 08.05.2009.

    (vii) The office of Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, vide notification dated 14.09.2006, imposed certain restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT