Con­sumer body asks Unitech to pay buy­ers’ money

DNA (Delhi) - - DELHI -

The apex con­sumer com­mis­sion has asked a real es­tate gi­ant to re­turn over Rs 58 lakh with in­ter­est to a Noida home buyer af­ter it failed to hand over the apart­ment within the stip­u­lated time.

The Na­tional Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Com­mis­sion (NCDRC) has asked Unitech Lim­ited to pay, within six weeks, an amount of Rs 58,41,623 along with a com­pen­sa­tion of sim­ple in­ter­est at the rate of 10 per cent per an­num, to Shakti Ku­mar Matta and noted that the firm had shown de­fi­cient ser­vice. It also asked Unitech to pay Rs 10,000 as lit­i­ga­tion cost to Matta.

“Since the com­plainant (Matta) has clearly stated that the op­po­site party (Unitech) has failed to hand over the apart­ment within the stip­u­lated pe­riod, the op­po­site party has

com­mit­ted de­fi­ciency in ser­vice, and there­fore, I al­low the com­plaint,” pre­sid­ing mem­ber of NCDRC Jus­tice Deepa Sharma said.

The apex com­mis­sion said that Matta has proved by way of an “un-con­tra­dicted tes­ti­mony” that the builder was sup­posed to hand over the apart­ment within 36 months but failed to do so even af­ter ex­piry of the pe­riod. The com­plainant had booked a flat in the project ‘Unitech Habi­tat’ of the firm in Noida in 2006.

He paid a sum of Rs 5,82,948 through cheque on July 18, 2006, and signed the agree­ment and ap­pli­ca­tion of the apart­ment. He started pay­ing the rest of the amount as per the pay­ment plan. He claimed that the builder raised var­i­ous de­mands from time to time which he paid too.

The al­lot­ment let­ter to Matta was given on Au­gust 30, 2006, af­ter which the builder told him that the pos­ses­sion of the flat would be handed over to him within 36 months.

While the ini­tial price of the flat was Rs 61,26,771, it was in­creased to Rs 65,11,323 out of which Matta paid an amount of Rs 58,41,623 in­clud­ing in­ter­est till March 1, 2009.

The re­main­ing amount was to be paid on pos­ses­sion of the flat. Matta al­leged that the builder failed to hand over the pos­ses­sion even af­ter 120 months fol­low­ing which he sent a le­gal no­tice to them in 2015.

Af­ter the no­tice failed to bear any con­se­quences, the com­plainant ap­proached the NCDRC.—PTI

Pic­ture for rep­re­sen­ta­tion

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.