News: NCDRC Asks Unitech To Refund Rs 41 Lakh To Buyer-01.11.2017
NCDRC asks Unitech to refund Rs 41 lakh to buyer
The apex consumer commission has asked real estate firm UnitechLtd to refund over Rs 41 lakh to a buyer, who had booked a property in one of its projects, saying the realtor had indulged in unfair trade practice.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has asked the company to refund Rs 41,15,320, to Haryana resident D K Mathur, saying "the allottee cannot be expected to wait for possession of the apartment for an indefinite period".
It also noted that the firm was not in a position to hand over the possession of the apartment.
The bench headed by Presiding Member Ajit Bharihoke also awarded Rs 10,000 as litigation cost to Mathur and said that the firm had failed to hand over the possession even after eight years of promised delivery date.
"The opposite party (firm) is not in a position to offer possession of the apartment. The company shall refund the amount with simple interest at 10 per cent per annum without any further liability.
"Thus, in our view, this is a case of the opposite party not being in a position to offer possession of the apartment as the allottee cannot be expected to wait for possession of the apartment for indefinite period," the commission observed.
It also said that despite receiving almost 95 per cent of the amount, the firm failed to deliver the possession of the apartment.
"In absence of any explanation for failure to comply with the stipulation of delivery of possession, we have no hesitation in concluding that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service as also has indulged in unfair trade practice," the commission said.
According to the complaint, in 2006, Mathur had paid over Rs 41 lakh and booked an apartment in Unitech Horizon, a residential project of the firm in Alistonia Estate at Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh.
Mathur was promised delivery of possession of the apartment by the end of 2008, but he failed to get it.
The company had said it was not in a position to hand over the property as the delay in completing the construction and delivery of possession, were beyond its control.
