Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.       Accordingly, we have heard Learned Counsel for the Complainants and Unitech and perused the documents filed and exhibited in evidence. The parties were permitted to file brief synopsis of their submissions. The Complainants have filed the synopsis but Unitech has chosen not to do so.

10.     In their synopsis, the Complainants have stated that since they were unable to bear the financial burden of paying an EMI of ₹3,50,000/- towards the housing loan taken from the HDFC Bank, they shifted the loan to ICICI Bank and are still paying an amount of ₹2,25,000/- as EMI, by raising loans from relatives and friends. It is also stated that as against a sum of ₹3,03,90,331/- deposited by them with Unitech, so far they have only received back a total sum of ₹45,00,000/-, by way of two demand drafts in the sum of ₹30,00,000/- and ₹15,00,000/- dated 15.01.2016 and 08.04.2016 respectively, against a deposit of over ₹3,00,000,00/- in the year 2011 and 2012. In support of their stand, that they are entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the total amount deposited with Unitech, the Complainants have referred to Clause 2.c of the Agreement, providing for charging of interest @ 18% p.a., compounded quarterly, on delayed payment. Strong reliance is placed on the decisions of this Commission particularly in Swarn Talwar & Ors. V. Unitech Ltd., rendered in Consumer Case No. 347 of 2014, wherein, vide order dated 14.08.2015, this Commission has granted simple interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited by a number of Complainants with Unitech. It is also pointed out that the Appeal (Civil Appeal Diary No. 35562 of 2015), preferred by Unitech against the said order, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.12.2015.