w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rishi Kapoor v/s Unitech Ltd.

    Consumer Case No. 1721 of 2016

    Decided On, 30 August 2018

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Brig (Retd) B M Kapoor, A R/ Father of the complainant. For the Opposite Parties: None.



Judgment Text

The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present consumer complaint are that the complainant on 22.05.2006 had applied to the opposite party for booking an apartment in Unitech Horizon built by them in Greater Noida, UP. The opposite party vide allotment letter dated 22.05.2006, allotted apartment no. 1601 in Tower 21 in Unitech Horizon for a consideration of Rs.44,48,935/-, out of which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.42,58,475/- to the opposite party. According to the allotment letter, the apartment was to be delivered to the complainant by 15th November 2008. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,11,000/- on 22.05.2006 and Rs.5,47,475 on 03.07.2006 and Rs.33 lakh was taken as loan from HSBC. Unitech issued receipts nos. 003409, 004246 and 004271 for these payments on 22.05.2006, 03.07.2006 and 04.07.2006 respectively. Complainant has alleged that despite the assurance given by the opposite party, the possession has not been handed over to the complainant even after a lapse of more than seven years. Hence, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint.

2. The complainant was admitted on 2nd November 2016. Vide this Commission’s order dated 21st March 2017 the right to file written statement on behalf of the opposite party was forfeited.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant presented before me a judgment of this Commission in the case of Vinay Prakash vs M/s Unitech Ltd., (CC no. 1576 of 2016) and connected complaint nos. 1442 of 2016, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, and 1317 of 2015 decided on 19th July 2017, and has prayed that a similar order be passed in this case as well. Learned counsel for the complainant confines his relief only for the refund of the money which he had paid to the opposite party along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till its realisation.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has not disputed the fact that in a similar project, this Commission in the case of Vinay Prakash vs M/s Unitech Ltd., has directed to refund of the money paid by the complainant with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till its realisation and also granted litigation cost.

5. I have heard Brig (Retd.,) B M Kapoor authorised representative and father of the complainant and perused the records. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party.

6. In view of the fact that the payment of amount of Rs.42,58,475/- has not been disputed by the opposite party. In view of the discussion above, I allow the present consumer complaint with the following directions:

(i) The opposite party shall refund an amount of Rs.42,58,475/- to the complainants the respective amounts paid to it by the complainants within six weeks from today al

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ong with compensation with simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till the realisation of the amount. (ii) The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainants. 7. With these directions the present consumer complaint stands disposed of.
O R