Case nº Consumer Case No. 758 of 2016 of NCDRC Cases, May 16, 2017 (case Naveen Sabharwal Vs Unitech Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, Advocate |
| President | Mr. V.K. Jain,Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | May 16, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
IA/2965/2017 (For condonation of delay)
The delay in filing the evidence is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
CC/758/2016
One Sukhjit Singh Bhatti booked a residential plot with the OP in a project namely ''Uniworld City'' which the said OP was to develop in Sector-106 of Mohali in Punjab. A residential plot admeasuring 420 sq. mtrs. in Block-A (Ranches) of the said project was then allotted to him. The parties then entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 08.07.2008, incorporating their respective obligations. As per clause 4.a of the aforesaid agreement, the possession was to be delivered within 36 months thereof, subject of course to force majeure circumstances. The complainant purchased the aforesaid plot from Mr. Sukhjit Singh Bhatti and the Buyers Agreement executed between the original buyer and the OP was endorsed in favour of the complainant on 27.03.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that despite a sum of Rs.81,64,430/- having already been paid to the OP out of the total agreed consideration of Rs.83,76,186/-, the possession of the plot was not delivered to him. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of Rs. 81,64,430/- alongwith compensation in the form of interest.
-
The OP did not put in appearance and did not file its written version, despite service of notice on it in Chandigarh on 13.06.2006. The absence of the OP was also brought to the notice of its Managing Director when he appeared before this Commission in some other matters. Despite that, there was no appearance on behalf of the OP. Since no written version was filed by the OP even after 45 days of service at Chandigarh, its right to file the written version was closed vide order dated 12.08.2016.
-
I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. A perusal of the Buyers Agreement clearly shows that the possession was expected to be delivered by 08.07.2011, though the OP could justify the delay on account of its reasons beyond its...
To continue reading
Request your trial