Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case nº Consumer Case No. 2 Of 2014 of NCDRC Cases, May 30, 2017 (case Mohit Chopra Vs Ms. Unitech Limited & Ors.)

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Bhushan Chopra, A.R. and For Respondents: Mr. R.K. Pandey, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate
PresidentMr. V.K. Jain,Presiding Member
DefenseConsumer Law
Resolution DateMay 30, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases

Order:

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member (Oral)

  1. The complainant booked a residential apartment with the OP in a project namely ''Harmony'' which the said OP is developing in Sector-50, Nirvana Country, Gurgaon. Apartment No.1102, admeasuring 3309 sq. ft. in Tower-4 of the above referred project was allotted to him for a total consideration of Rs.1,66,18,875/- and the parties entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 19.05.2010 incorporating their respective obligations. As per clause 4.a of the Agreement, the possession was to be delivered to the complainant by 31.03.2011, subject to force majeure circumstances. The grievance of the complainant is that despite he having already paid a sum of Rs.1,58,77,069/-, to the OP, the possession of the flat has not even been offered to him. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the aforesaid flat alongwith compensation etc.

  2. The complaint has been resisted by the OP on the grounds which this Commission has repeatedly rejected in a number of consumer complaints pertaining to this very project, including CC No.1088 of 2015, Raja Balasubramanian Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr. decided on 18.04.2017 and CC No.368 of 2014 Shweta Kapoor & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr. decided on 14.01.2016.

    The delay in offering possession was sought to be justified on the following grounds in Shweta Kapoor (supra):

    This scarcity of an essential commodity for construction purposes made it difficult for the Opposite Parties to cope up with the pre-decided schedules as the availability of treated water became very limited and against the total requirement of water. It is to be highlighted here that only approx. 10-15% of required quantity was available at construction sites to continue with the planned construction activities.

    In addition to the above, the Opposite Parties were later completely banned to use underground water for construction purposes and were vehemently directed to use recycled water only.

    iv. Notification dated 14.9.1999 published by Ministry of Environment and Forest -- The Notification dated 14.09.1999 barred the excavation of top soil for the manufacture of bricks and further directed that no manufacturing of clay bricks or tiles or blocks be done within a radius of 50 (fifty) kilometres from coal and lignite based thermal power plants without mixing atleast 25% of ash with soil. As a consequence of this Notification...

To continue reading

Request your trial