The complainant had booked a flat in the firm's 'Unitech Habitat' project in 2006 (Representational)
The top consumer commission has asked a real estate giant to return over Rs 58 lakh with interest to a 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 Mr 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 top commission said that Mr 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 firm's 'Unitech Habitat' project 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 Mr 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 Mr 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.
Mr 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.