Case nº Consumer Case No. 165 Of 2011 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 09, 2015 (case 1. C. M. Nayar and Anr 2. Ms. Asha Nayar Vs Ms. Unitech Ltd. and Anr.)
|Judge:||For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate With Ms. Nanda Devi Dekaa & Ms. Anushree Narain, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate and With Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate|
|President:||Mr. J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member|
|Resolution Date:||December 09, 2015|
|Issuing Organization:||National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission|
J.M. Malik, J.
Counsel for the parties present. Final arguments heard. The possession of the flat has been given to the complainants. The sale deed has also been executed. Counsel for the Complainants points out that there are still two problems. Firstly, there is a delay in handing over the premises in dispute and secondly no occupation certificate has been handed over to the complainant.
First of all we turn to the question of delay in handing over the possession of promises in dispute. Our attention has been invited towards para No. 4 A (i) of the agreement, which is reproduced as follows:-
"4.a.Delivery of Possession:
Further the possession was delivered on 27.10.2014. It should have been delivered in June 2008.
On the other hand, counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the offer of possession was made on 03.03.2012. The letter in this context has been placed on the record. In response to this letter, the complainant sent letter dated 30.03.2012. The relevant extract runs as follows:-
"The aforesaid amounts are being paid under protest and without prejudiced to our rights and contentions arising in complaint case no. 165/2011 pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission".
Again the construction was incomplete.
The complainant also sent another letter dated 06.03.2012 asking the OP to produce the occupancy certificate and state the reasons for delay in giving the possession of premises in dispute. It is an indisputable fact that occupancy certificate has not yet been obtained.
The Second submission made by the counsel for the OPs is that the OPs had applied for occupancy certificate vide letter dated 08.03.2010. They have not still got the said certificate despite the elapse of 5 years. It is surprising to note that if the OPs were not sure that they would get the occupancy certificate, they should not have floated this scheme. The Consumers are afraid of the Coca Cola Colony''s case in Bombay. They desire that the occupation certificate must be obtained before they are put in possession of the premises in dispute. The consumers are further exasperated by the senseless delay.
The counsel for the OP submits that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Again parties cannot go behind the agreement. Counsel for the OP has also referred to Clause 9(b) of the agreement, which runs as follows:-
"9(b). Force Majeure:
That, however, if the completion of the Apartment...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL