Skip to main content

Unitech to reimburse rent to buyer for delay in giving flat - NCDRD

Realty major Unitech Ltd has been directed by the apex consumer commission to reimburse nearly Rs 14 lakh spent by a customer on rent after the flat for which he paid over Rs 1.37 crore in 2007 was not handed over to him till date.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also pulled up the real estate major and its top officials, Executive Chairman Ramesh Chandra and Managing Directors Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, saying "even after lapse of six years the flats are not ready".

"It is clear that the opposite parties (Unitech and its officials) want to have benefit of both the worlds. They have received the entire price of the apartment at the time of execution of the agreement. Even after the lapse of six years, the flats are not ready.

"The opposite parties have offered peanuts for delaying construction of work. They have to honour their commitment," a bench headed by Justice J M Malik said, giving six months time to Unitech to hand over the flat in one of its residential townships in Gurgaon to Sanjay Goyal.

The bench said that after the period of six months is over, Unitech will have to pay Rs 25,000 for every additional month of delay in handing over possession and awarded Gurgaon resident Goyal Rs 50,000 as compensation.

The NCDRC also directed Unitech to reimburse the rent of Rs 42,500 per month from October 2010 to August 2012 (Rs 9.35 lakh) and Rs 50,000 from September 2012 to May 2013 (Rs 4.5 lakh) paid by Goyal.

The commission also directed the real estate company to pay the current rent of Rs 50,000 per month being paid by Goyal for the time it takes to hand over possession of the flat.

In his complaint, Goyal alleged that he had in September 2007 paid Rs 1,37,89,069 to Unitech for a flat in one of its housing projects 'Harmony' at 'Nirvana Country' residential township in Sector 50, Gurgaon, Haryana and as per the buyers agreement he was to get possession of the unit by September 2010.

Till date the possession had not been handed over to him, Goyal had said.

Unitech had offered to pay Goyal Rs 7.5 per square feet as holding charges for the delay in handing over possession or to refund entire amount paid by him with interest of 15 per cent, but he had refused to settle, the NCDRC noted.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Unitech-to-reimburse-rent-to-buyer-for-delay-in-giving-flat/articleshow/20407924.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more