Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Consumer Case No. 307 of 2015

Disposition

Attorney(S)

For the Complainant: Mr. Devinder Sharma, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Ms. Simran Jeet, Advocate for Mr. Mohinder J.S Rupal, Advocate

Judges

V.K Jain, Presiding Member

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainants (husband and wife) booked a residential flat in the "Burgundy" project being developed by the opposite party (Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Limited) in Sector-96 to 98, Noida. By an allotment letter dated 27.08.2010, Apartment No. 0602, Level 6, Tower-1 (super area about 5,575 sq.ft) was allotted for a total consideration of Rs. 3,39,60,797/-. The complainants had paid Rs. 3,33,48,470/- to the opposite party.

The opposite party resisted the complaint primarily on grounds already rejected by this Commission in related matters (for example, Consumer Complaint No. 367 of 2015 — Richa Aggarwal Vs. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Limited decided on 04.11.2016). The Commission considered a range of factual and legal materials, including prior orders of this Commission in related complaints, affidavits filed by the opposite party, and interim orders and directions of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and other authorities. The complainants sought refund/compensation for delayed possession; during the hearing they indicated willingness to accept compensation in the form of interest at 10% per annum to avoid further litigation.

Procedurally, the matter was disposed of by an order dated 06 Jan 2017, pronounced orally by Justice V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the delay in offering possession of the allotted flat was justified by the opposite party on grounds including farmers' agitation, pending writs in the High Court of Allahabad, orders of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) including restrictions related to the Okhla Bird Sanctuary, restrictions on use of groundwater, and alleged shortage of labour.
Whether the complainants are entitled to refund of the amounts paid along with compensation (interest), or to alternative accommodation, under the terms of allotment (notably Clause 5(vi) of the allotment terms).
What relief and quantification of compensation (if any) should be granted to the complainants for the delay in possession.

Arguments of the Parties

Opposite Party's Arguments

The delay in completion and offering possession was justified by several external factors: (i) agitation by farmers whose land was acquired and allotted by Noida Authority, (ii) writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad leading to orders affecting development and master plan implementation, (iii) an interim NGT order of 17.09.2013 restraining construction activity within 10 km of Okhla Bird Sanctuary (later replaced by a Notification dated 19.08.2015 declaring a 100 m Eco Sensitive Zone), (iv) NGT restrictions on the use of ground water for construction in Noida/Greater Noida, and (v) acute shortage of labour.
In an affidavit of the Managing Director (Ajay Chandra), the opposite party stated it had intervened in writ petitions concerning land acquisition (village Sardarpur), and that acquisition of land for the project was under challenge, creating uncertainty. The affidavit also recited the NGT restraint and subsequent Notification, and said street works and utilities had been laid and that the company expected to deliver possession within 12 months.
Implicitly, the opposite party relied on the operation or effect of the NGT orders and of the litigation cloud over land acquisition to justify the delay.

Complainants' Arguments

The complainants sought refund of the amounts paid and appropriate compensation for delayed possession. They asserted that some interest had already been paid by the opposite party (interest on Rs. 2,87,90,000/- up to 30.09.2012) and sought compensation (interest) on that sum from 01.10.2012 and interest on the balance amounts from the respective dates of payment as reflected in their statement (Ex.C-4).
To avoid further litigation, the complainants' counsel indicated willingness to accept compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Richa Aggarwal — Consumer Complaint No. 367 of 2015 (decided 04.11.2016)	Used as a prior decision in which the Commission rejected the same grounds advanced by the opposite party for delay.	The Commission relied on that prior rejection as relevant authority to resist the same line of defence in the present complaint.
Gaurav Chhabra — CC No. 148 of 2015 (decided 02.11.2016)	Addressed identical grounds raised by the opposite party and directed production of specific information about writs, NGT orders and project status.	The Court invoked the view taken in that decision as relevant for adjudication of this complaint and followed similar lines of enquiry.
Gajraj Singh — Writ No. 37443 of 2011 (High Court of Allahabad)	Referenced in the Commission's direction to verify whether the opposite party was a party to the writ and whether any restraining order had been passed by the High Court of Allahabad affecting development.	Court required the opposite party to clarify its involvement and to place any relevant High Court order on record to show whether such orders restrained development.
Radhey Shyam Vs. State of UP (2011) 5 SCC 533	Cited in the opposite party's affidavit to illustrate Supreme Court authority on quashing of land acquisition and to support the contention that acquisition was under legal challenge.	The affidavit used the precedent to explain that acquisition being "under cloud of uncertainty" influenced developers' approach to development; the Commission noted this as part of the factual matrix but required substantiation for delay attributable to litigation.
Pradeep Narula & Anr. Vs. M/s Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. — CC No. 315 of 2014 (decided 23.08.2016)	Considered the scope and effect of the NGT interim order restraining extraction of groundwater and construction near Okhla Bird Sanctuary and discussed when that order would apply (i.e., projects lacking requisite environmental clearance).	The Commission applied the principles and reasoning in Pradeep Narula to assess whether the NGT orders applied to the present project, emphasizing that the NGT order would not bind projects that had requisite environmental clearance and that builders were expected to seek alternative water sources.
Diwakar Mishra & Anr. Vs. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd. — CC No. 91 of 2015 (order dated 12.10.2015)	This Commission allowed complaints relating to allotment of residential flats in the Burgundy project and directed the opposite party to offer possession by 31.10.2017 and to pay compensation @ 10% p.a. for delay.	The Commission noted that several complaints in the same project were allowed and that the opposite party had sought appellate relief in the Supreme Court which resulted in settlement in that case; the present complaint was considered against this background.
National Green Tribunal orders (interim orders dated 11.01.2013, 14.08.2013, 17.09.2013; order dated 28.10.2013; Notification dated 19.08.2015)	These NGT orders/notifications concerned: (i) restraining groundwater extraction for construction in Noida/Greater Noida; (ii) restraining construction within 10 km of Okhla Bird Sanctuary unless environmental clearance obtained; (iii) directing examination of projects by National Board for Wildlife and withholding completion certificates until NBWL clearance; and (iv) the later Notification declaring a 100 m Eco Sensitive Zone around the sanctuary.	The Commission analyzed the scope and effect of these orders: (a) if requisite Environmental Clearance (EC) was obtained, the NGT interim restraint did not apply; (b) builders were expected to source alternative water if groundwater extraction was restrained; (c) the NGT order did not stay construction where EC existed and primarily affected issuance of completion certificates pending NBWL clearance; and (d) any delays due to governmental or NBWL processes could be pursued by the builder before the Tribunal. The Commission found no sufficient evidence that these orders justified the developer's delay in completion in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission conducted a stepwise analysis of the opposite party's pleaded grounds for delay and the factual material before it:

NGT Orders and Environmental Clearance: The Commission examined prior Commission decisions (notably Pradeep Narula) and NGT orders. It observed that the NGT interim order restraining extraction of groundwater and construction near Okhla Bird Sanctuary applied specifically to projects lacking requisite environmental clearance. If a developer had obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) before the NGT order, the order did not apply to that project. The Commission required evidence whether the opposite party's project fell within the scope of the NGT restraint (i.e., whether EC was obtained). The opposite party did not demonstrate that the NGT orders necessarily applied to its project in a manner that justified delay.
Alternative Sources of Water: The Commission noted that where NGT limited groundwater extraction, builders were expected to arrange alternative water sources for construction. The Court remarked that construction did occur elsewhere in Noida/Greater Noida despite the interim order, and there was no evidence the opposite party had attempted alternative arrangements. Therefore, the NGT interim order alone could not be accepted as a complete defense for delay without evidence of efforts to mitigate its impact.
Farmers' Agitation and Litigation Over Land Acquisition: The Commission found no affidavits or evidence that farmers had physically halted work at the particular project site or prevented labour from working. While the opposite party's affidavit indicated that land acquisition for the village Sardarpur was under challenge and that developers took a cautious approach, the Commission required direct evidence of stoppage of work at the site attributable to farmers. Consequently, the plea of delay due to farmers' agitation was unsubstantiated.
High Court of Allahabad Litigation: The Commission observed that there was no order from the High Court of Allahabad restraining the opposite party from carrying out construction at the project site. Therefore, the litigation before that Court did not eviscerate the opposite party's contractual obligation to complete construction and deliver possession.
Shortage of Labour: The Commission noted absence of material (such as affidavits from contractors or labourers) to show that work could not proceed due to labour shortage, or that contractors had refused to bid. Thus, this ground lacked evidentiary support.
Precedent and Project-specific Orders: The Commission considered prior orders in connected complaints (e.g., Diwakar Mishra) and settlements in appeals to the Supreme Court in related matters. It also considered the allotment terms, particularly Clause 5(vi), which provides that if the developer cannot offer the apartment, the developer shall offer an alternative property or refund the amount in full with simple interest at 10% p.a. without further liability.
Remedy and Quantification: Given the above findings — inadequate evidence to substantiate the OP's grounds for delay and the contractual clause providing for refund/alternative with interest — together with the complainants' willingness to accept interest at 10% p.a., the Commission concluded that the complainants were entitled to refund of amounts paid along with interest.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

COMPLAINT DISPOSED OF — The Court ordered refund of the amounts paid by the complainants with compensation in the form of simple interest at 10% per annum, and awarded litigation costs.

Specific directions given by the Commission (as reflected in the order dated 06 Jan 2017):

The opposite party shall refund the entire amount of Rs. 3,33,48,470/- received from the complainants along with:
- Simple interest at 10% p.a. on Rs. 2,87,90,000/- w.e.f. 01.10.2012 until the date of refund; and
- Simple interest at 10% p.a. on the balance amount of Rs. 45,58,470/- w.e.f. the date of each payment as reflected in statement Ex.C-4 (paper-book p.36) until the date of refund.
The opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants.
Payment in terms of the order shall be made within three months from the date of the order.

Implications:

The direct effect is a monetary refund and interest award in favor of the complainants and a costs order; the complainants are to be repaid the paid consideration plus interest as quantified by the Commission.
The decision reinforces the Commission's position that developers cannot automatically rely on generalized contentions (NGT orders, litigation over land acquisition, farmer agitation, labour shortage) to avoid contractual obligations without producing site-specific and documentary evidence showing how such factors directly prevented performance.
The order applies to the parties before the Commission; the opinion does not purport to create a new legal precedent beyond applying existing Commission reasoning and prior orders to the facts of this complaint. No broader, novel legal principle was announced beyond the application of existing authorities and contractual clause 5(vi) to the facts at hand.

This summary was prepared strictly on the basis of the information contained in the provided opinion. No information has been added or inferred beyond the text of that opinion.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Pramod Yadav v. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Limited

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 307 OF 2015

1. PRAMOD YADAV & ANR. ...........Complainant(s) Versus

1. UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED BASEMENT, 6 COMMUNITY CENTRE-SAKET

SAKET

NEW DELHI-110 017 ...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Complainant : Mr. Devinder Sharma, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Ms. Simran Jeet, Advocate for Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate

Dated : 06 Jan 2017

ORDER

JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The complainants who are husband and wife booked a residential flat in a project namely Burgundy which the OP is developing in Sector-96 to 98 of Noida. Vide allotment letter dated 27.08.2010, a residential apartment No.0602 on Level 6 in Tower-1 of the aforesaid project having a super area of about 5575 sq.ft was allotted to them, for a total consideration of Rs.3,39,60,797/-. The complainants have already paid a sum of Rs.3,33,48,470/- to the opposite party.

2. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on the same ground which this Commission has already rejected in Consumer Complaint No.367 of 2015 - Richa Aggarwal Vs. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Limited decided on 4.11.2016. The order of this Commission in Richa Aggarwal (supra), to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

"2. The delay in completion of the flat and offering possession to the complainants is sought to be justified primarily on the following grounds:

(i) There was agitation by farmers whose land was allotted by Noida Authority and allotted to the opposite party. The farmers were seeking increase in compensation and allotment of developed plots in lieu of the acquired land.

(ii) High Court of Allahabad while deciding a bunch of writ petitions filed by various farmers had restrained Noida as well as the developers from carrying out any development and implementing the Master Plan 2021 till the observations and directions

of the National Capital Regional Planning Board were incorporated in Master Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the said Board.

(iii) The National Green Tribunal had passed an order on 17.9.2013 stopping construction activity in and around 10 km of Okhla Bird Sanctuary and the present project falls within 10 km of the said bird sanctuary. The said order dated 17.9.2013 finally came to be replaced by a Notification issued by Govt. of India, M/o Environment on 19.8.2015 declaring an Eco Sensitive Zone of 100 meters around the Okhla Bird Sanctuary.

(iv) Restrictions were imposed by National Green Tribunal on use of ground water for construction purposes in Noida and Greater Noida.

(v) There was acute shortage of labour.

3. Identical grounds were taken by the OP in CC No. 148 of 2015 Gaurav Chhabra Vs. M/s Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd. and connected matters decided on 02.11.2016. The following view taken by this Commission in the aforesaid decision is relevant for the purpose of this complaint as well.

4. When CC No.148 of 2015 came up for hearing before this Commission on 29.2.2016 , this Commission having taken note of the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party, directed the opposite party to file an affidavit giving the following information:-

"(1) Whether the opposite party was a party to Writ No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors. and if so, whether there was any order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad restraining the opposite party from carrying out development on the land subject matter of this complaint. In that case, the opposite party shall also place on record the copy of the order of the High Court besides informing upto which date the said order continued to remain in force.

(2) Whether any order with respect to development on the land subject matter of this complaint was passed by National Green Tribunal and if so, what that order was, when it was passed and upto which date the said order continued to remain in force. The copy of such an order shall also be filed.

(3) What is the present status of the development on the land subject matter of this complaint and when the opposite party will be in a position to deliver possession of the plot booked by the complainant to him, in accordance with law."

5. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the opposite party filed affidavit of its Managing Director Mr. Ajay Chandra. The aforesaid affidavit, to the extent it is relevant with respect to the aforesaid three informations, reads as under:-

"It is respectfully submitted that the opposite party had filed intervention applications along with other builders, in several writ petitions which were related to village Sadarpur, Noida (where the allotted land is situated). These writ petitions were primarily filed by the farmers against the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Noida/Greater Noida

Development Authority seeking quashing of the notifications issued by the Government for acquisition of their lands. It is submitted that the Noida authority had acquired this land from farmers of the villages Sardarpur and allotted it to the opposite party for development of the project as per planning. The land, wherein plotted development are being made by the opposite party including the plot of the complainant, falls in village Sardarpur, and acquisition in respect of all lands of this village was under challenge. There was no restraining order as such but in view of the conflicting views and the law governing on the subject (Quashing of land acquisition by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various matters including Radhey Shyam Vs. State of UP (2011) 5 SCC 533, the entire acquisition was under cloud of uncertainty and hence all the developers in the area including the opposite party took a conscious approach in development. That during the pendency of the above litigations, restraint order dated 17.9.2013 was passed by National Green Tribunal, Delhi not to raise any construction activity in and around 10 kms. of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary and the present project fell within 10 km vicinity of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. District Magistrate and SSP were directed to implement the order. A letter to this effect was also issued by SSP, Gautambudhnagar. Copy of order along with letter dated 25^th December 2013 issued to the respondent by SSP, Gautambudh Nagar is attached herewith as Annexure-D.

That the above, order passed by NGT Delhi was finally replaced by the Notification dated 19.8.2015 issued by Ministry of Environment, Govt. of India declaring 100 mtr in and around Okhla Bird Sanctuary as Eco Sensitive Zone. A copy of Notification dated 19.8.2015 is attached herewith as Annexure-E.

That the streets and mains, sewerage, storm drainage and water pipeline of the plots of Willows have been laid down. The internal roads have been finished in concrete and for internal lighting the electric street light post fitting work are in progress. The respondent company is expecting to deliver the possession of the plots within 12 month."

4. As regards the restraint order passed by National Green Tribunal in respect of projects within a radius of 10 kms from Okhla Bird Sanctuary, the view taken by this Commission in Pradeep Narula & Anr. Vs. M/s Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. in CC No. 315 of 2014 decided on 23.08.2016 is relevant:

7. Vide interim order dated 11.01.2013, the National Green Tribunal restrained all the builders of Noida and Greater Noida from extracting any quantity of ground water for the purpose of construction, till the next date of hearing before it. The next date of hearing before the National Green Tribunal fixed was 24.01.2013. The aforesaid order shows that the builders raising construction of 20,000 sq. mtrs. and above were required to take environmental clearance under the relevant rules by the competent authority in the State Government but said permission had not been taken. If the requisite EC was taken by the opposite party, the order passed by the National Green Tribunal did not apply to it. If the opposite party was required to take permission from the competent authority in the State Government but had not taken such a permission before selling flats in the aforesaid project, it is only itself to blame for creating a situation in which the order passed by the National Green Tribunal on 11.01.2013 came to be applied to this

project. Moreover, there is no evidence of the opposite party having tried to obtain water for construction purpose from alternative source. If the National Green Tribunal had restrained the builders from extracting the underground water in Noida/Greater Noida, they were expected to arrange water from the alternative source so as to fulfill their contractual obligation to the flat buyers. It is not as if no construction took place in Noida and Greater Noida during the period the interim order passed by the National Green Tribunal remained in force. Therefore, if the opposite party so wanted, it could have arranged water for construction purpose from the alternative source. There is no evidence of the aforesaid interim order dated 11.01.2013 having been continued by the National Green Tribunal after 24.01.2013 which was the next date of hearing in the aforesaid matter. In any case, it cannot be said that the delay in completion of the project was justified on account of the above referred interim order of the National Green Tribunal.

8. The opposite party has filed, alongwith its affidavit by way of evidence, a copy of an order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal in M.A. No. 890 of 2013 and connected matters. The said order contains reference to an earlier order dated 14.08.2013, whereby NOIDA was directed to stop the construction work going on within a radius of 10 kms from Okhla Bird Sanctuary, without prior environmental clearance or in contravention of the same. The order dated 28.10.2013 shows that the aforesaid order applied to 49 projects out of which, 15 had already been completed and 7 had not begun. The Tribunal made it clear that its intention on 17.09.2013 was to extend the interim order dated 14.09.2013 to the persons or builders carrying on construction activity without environmental clearance or against the provisions of the environmental clearance. This is not the case of the opposite party that no environmental clearance was required or that it had not obtained such a clearance before it started the construction in this project. In such a case, the order passed by the National Green Tribunal would not apply to this project since the scope of the said order was limited to the construction activity being carried out without requisite environmental clearance or in contravention of the environmental clearance. If the opposite party had commenced construction of the project in question without obtaining the requisite environmental clearance or the said construction was in contravention of the environmental clearance, it has only itself to blame for the said construction being stopped by the National Green Tribunal.

9. Vide above referred order dated 28.10.2013, National Green Tribunal directed that all the projects within an area of 10 kms radius of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary be examined by National Board for Wild Life. The Ministry of Environment & Forests was directed to refer all the aforesaid projects to National Board for Wild Life, within four weeks. The Government of U.P. was directed to send the particulars relating to the environmental clearance given to the aforesaid projects to the Ministry of Environment & Forests within four weeks from the order. Within four weeks thereafter, Ministry of Environment & Forests was to refer the same to the standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life, which was to verify the correctness of the statement made by the project proponent. The order passed by the aforesaid Board was to indicate whether the project should be permitted or not. It was made clear that the building construction within 10 kms radius of Okhla Bird Sanctuary or within distance of Eco-Sensitive Zone to be prescribed by Ministry of Environment & Forests shall be subject to decision of

National Board for Wild Life and till clearance from the said Board, the Authority shall not issue completion certificate to the project. Thus, in the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2013, the National Green Tribunal did not stay further construction of the projects where requisite environmental clearance had been obtained, and only completion certificate was withheld till clearance from the National Board for Wild Life. The order of the Tribunal to the extent the issue of completion certificate was withheld till the clearance from NBWL could not have contributed to the delay in offering possession to the complainants since the construction not being complete, the stage to obtain the requisite completion certificate had not reached, by the time the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2013 came to be passed by the National Green Tribunal. In fact, even in the cases where the construction was complete and the completion certificate had been applied, the builder could obtain the completion certificate on the project being cleared by NBWL. If there was a delay on the part of the Government of U.P. in sending the particulars relating to the environmental clearance given to the project, to the Ministry of Environment & Forests, there was delay on the part of Ministry of Environment & Forests in forwarding the matter to National Board for Wild Life or there was delay on the part of the National Board for Wild Life in completing its enquiry in terms of the order of the National Green Tribunal, the builder could always approach the said Tribunal for giving appropriate directions to the Government of U.P. or Ministry of Environment & Forests or National Board for Wild Life as the case might be.

5. As regards delay on account of agitation by farmers, there is no evidence of the work at this particular site having been halted by the farmers. No affidavit of the contractor engaged by the opposite party for the construction of the flats in this project has been filed to prove that he had to halt the work on account of agitation by farmers. No affidavit by any construction labourer has been filed to prove that the labourers were prevented by farmers from carrying out construction on the site of this project. Therefore, the delay in completion of the construction on account of the alleged agitation by the farmers could not be substantiated by the opposite party.

6. As far as the litigation before the High Court of Allahabad is concerned, admittedly, there was no order passed by the said High Court restraining the OP from undertaking construction of the flats at the site of this project. Therefore, the aforesaid order did not come in the way of the OP completing the construction in terms of its contractual obligations contained in the allotment letter.

7. As regards the alleged shortage of labour, no material has been placed on record by the OP to show that it could not get adequate work force to complete the construction of the flats despite efforts having been made in this regard. There is no evidence of the OP having invited tender for engagement of Contractors/Sub-Contractors with adequate manpower for executing the work at the site of this project and no such Contractor/Sub- Contractor having come forward to execute the work on account of non-availability of the manpower. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea taken by the OP in this regard.

8. A number of complaints relating to allotment of residential flats in this very project namely Burgundy were allowed by this Commission vide its order dated 12.10.2015 passed in CC No. 91 of 2015 Diwakar Mishra & Anr. Vs. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers

Ltd. and connected matters. In the aforesaid matters, the complainants wanted possession of the flat allotted to them by the OP and therefore, this Commission directed the OP to offer possession of the flats to the said complainants on or before 31.10.2017 and also pay compensation to them @ 10% per annum for the period the possession was delayed. An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed by the OP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal (D) No. 42101 of 2015. The said appeal resulted in settlement between the parties. The appeals came to be disposed of vide order dated 01.09.2016. However, the terms of the settlement do not form part of the order. The authorized representative of the OP informs that the settlement envisaged allotment of the plots to the complainants in lieu of the flats which they had booked with the OP. However, in the present case, neither any plot has been offered to the complainants nor are they interested in obtaining an alternative plot from the OP. Complainant no. 2 Satish Aggarwal who is present in the court states that he does not want to wait anymore for the allotment of the flat and wants refund of the amount which he had paid to the OP alongwith appropriate compensation.

9. Clause 5(vi) of the terms and conditions attached to the allotment reads as under:

5. POSSESSION OF APARTMENT

a) Letter for fit outs and interiors:

(vi) If for any reason the developer is not in a position to offer the apartment, the developer shall offer the allottee(s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with simple interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation/charges to the allottee(s) on this account."

3. The learned counsel for the complainant informs that the OP has already paid interest on Rs.2,87,90,000/- upto 30.9.2012 and, therefore, on the aforesaid amount they are claiming compensation in the form of interest w.e.f. 1.10.2012 but on the balance amount they are claiming compensation in the form of interest, from the date of each payment

4. The learned counsel for the complainants states that in order to avoid further litigation, the complainants are agreeable to accept compensation in the form of interest @ 10% per annum.

5. The complaint is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:-

1. The opposite party shall refund the entire amount of Rs.3,33,48,470/- received from the complainant alongwith (i) compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2,87,90,000/- w.e.f. 1.10.2012 till the date of refund (ii) compensation on the balance amount of Rs.45,58,470/- at the rate of 10% p.a. w.e.f. date of each payment as reflected in the statement Ex.C-4 on page 36 of the paper-book, till the date of refund.

(2) The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants.

(3) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.

......................J

V.K. JAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

Pramod Yadav v. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Limited

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Opposite Party's Arguments

Complainants' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Pramod Yadav v. Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Limited

Comments