Haryana

Sonipat

CC/190/2015

Shriti Aggarwal W/o Vineet Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s T.D.I. Infrstructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Malik

17 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.190 of 2015

                             Instituted on:08.06.2015

                             Date of order:25.05.2016

 

Shriti Aggarwal wife of Vineet Aggarwal, r/o D-10/15, D-10 Block, Model Town, II, Delhi.

                                       ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd., G-7, Ground Floor, Connaught Circus (Opp. Madras Hotel Block) New Delhi-1 and 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-1, through its appropriate authority.

2. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., office at Kundli, distt. Sonepat through its appropriate authority.

 

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Surender 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 she has stepped into the shoes of Naresh Kumar and Vijay Kumar and has become the allottee/owner of the plot in question.  The complainant has totally paid Rs.21,35,000/-  to the respondents, but till today, the complainant has not been given the possession of the plot by the respondents and conveyance deed has also not been executed in favour of the complainant by the respondents and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, it is submitted that there is no time limit mentioned in the terms and conditions of advance registration form for delivery of possession.  As per payment plan, 10% of the cost of the aid plot is to be deposited at the time of offering possession and the said installment is still due.  So, the complainant cannot insist for delivery of possession at this stage.  The development work is going on and as soon as it will be completed, the respondent shall offer possession of the plot.  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 paid Rs.21,35,000/- to the respondents in respect of the plot in question, but till today, the possession of the same has not been delivered to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no time limit mentioned in the terms and conditions of advance registration form for delivery of possession.  As per payment plan, 10% of the cost of the aid plot is to be deposited at the time of offering possession and the said installment is still due.  So, the complainant cannot insist for delivery of possession at this stage.  The development work is going on and as soon as it will be completed, the respondent shall offer possession of the plot.

         But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents.  In our view, the complainant cannot be left in the hands of the respondents for an indefinite period.  It is the obligatory duty of the respondents to deliver the physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant particularly when they have already received the huge amount from the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to deliver the possession of the plot measuring 250 Sq. yards to the complainant in the Block ‘K’, in the same project and in the same location as prayed for in the prayer clause by the complainant.  The respondents are further directed that if any installment is due towards the complainant, then to accept the same from the complainant without any interest or penalty.  Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment, mental agony and under the head of litigation expenses.

         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:25.05.2016