Haryana

Sonipat

CC/293/2014

RAJIV KUMAR S/O DHARAM CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. INTIME PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.2, TDI INFRASTRUCTURE,3. BRANCH MANAGER TDI INFRASTRUCTURE - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

17 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.293 of 2014

                             Instituted on:04.11.2014

                             Date of order:18.05.2016

 

Rajiv Kumar son of Dharam Chand r/o H.No.145, Mohanpura, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-01 through its Managing Director.

2.M/s TDI Infracorp Ltd. (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd) UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-01.

3.Branch Manager, TDI Infracorp Ltd., TDI City, Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondents.

         

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

       

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has applied for the allotment of one residential flat in the Group Housing Project in the future scheme of the respondents at Kingsbury Flats, TDI City Kundli.  The complainant has approached and requested the respondents to allot the residential flat of the area about 1400-1500 sq. feet to the complainant and the respondents handed over a copy of statement of account to the complainant showing therein customer ID no.KFL 16664 and temp flat ID KFL Temp 16841, residential flat of the size of KFL-B/1625 sq. feet at the rate of Rs.1625/- per feet and the balance amount shown as Rs.694430/-, but the respondents have also mentioned therein “Cancelled” and on enquiry it was told that the word “Cancelled” has been wrongly mentioned.  The complainant has been visiting the office of the respondents and requesting them to allot and hand over the possession of the residential flat to the complainant, but of no use.  The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.7 lacs with the respondents and the complainant has also requested the respondents to refund the amount, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant has booked a flat in the year 2006 but after the booking, the complainant did not pursue with the same.  The complainant has admitted that an amount of Rs.695340/- was due against him as on 6.8.2010 but the complainant did not bother to clear the said dues.  The respondent is still ready to allot/deliver the possession of identical flat in the same project subject to payment of all dues by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to get the refund of his amount.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has applied for the allotment of one residential flat in the Group Housing Project in the future scheme of the respondents at Kingsbury Flats, TDI City Kundli.  The complainant has approached and requested the respondents to allot the residential flat of the area about 1400-1500 sq. feet to the complainant and the respondents handed over a copy of statement of account to the complainant showing therein customer ID no.KFL 16664 and temp flat ID KFL Temp 16841, residential flat of the size of KFL-B/1625 sq. feet at the rate of Rs.1625/- per feet and the balance amount shown as Rs.694430/-, but the respondents have also mentioned therein “Cancelled” and on enquiry it was told that the word “Cancelled” has been wrongly mentioned.  The complainant has been visiting the office of the respondents and requesting them to allot and hand over the possession of the residential flat to the complainant, but of no use.  The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.7 lacs with the respondents and the complainant has also requested the respondents to refund the amount, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has booked a flat in the year 2006 but after the booking, the complainant did not pursue with the same.  The complainant has admitted that an amount of Rs.695340/- was due against him as on 6.8.2010 but the complainant did not bother to clear the said dues.  The respondent is still ready to allot/deliver the possession of identical flat in the same project subject to payment of all dues by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to get the refund of his amount.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5.       After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we find force in the present complaint.  The complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The respondents have admitted that the complainant has booked a flat in the year 2006.  He has deposited huge amount of Rs.7 lacs with the respondents and as on 6.8.2010, the balance towards the complainant was Rs.6,95,430/-.     In the present case, the respondents have received the amount of Rs.7 lacs, which they are utilizing for their personal gains without providing any kind of services to the complainant.  The respondents till date, even have not provided the flat number to the complainant.  Only customer ID number has been given to the complainant.  In our view, the complainant has rightly demanded the refund from the respondents by way of present complaint since the complainant cannot be left in the hands of the respondents-builders for an indefinite period, because till date, the respondents even have not provided the flat number to the complainant and how he can expect the physical possession of the flat from the respondents.  The complainant has been forced by the respondents to knock the doors of this Forum for redressal of his grievances.  Accordingly, we have no other option except to accept the present complaint with the directions to the respondents to refund the deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 18.05.2016