TILAK RAJ GUMBER S/O JAWALA RAM filed a consumer case on 06 Jan 2015 against 1. TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTRUE LTD.,2. PROJECT MANAGER TDI CITY,3. THE DIRECTOR TOWN AND CO in the Sonipat Consumer Court. The case no is 419/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Apr 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.
Complaint No.419 of 2013
Instituted on:11.10.2013
Date of order:27.04.2015
Tilak Raj Gumber son of Jawala Ram Gumber, resident of Gandhi Chowk, Ellenabad, Distt. Sirsa.
...Complainant.
Versus
1.TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (formerly known as Intimate Promoters Pvt. Ltd.) through its Managing Director/Director, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
2.The Project Manager, TDI City, Kundli, Main NH-1, Kundli, Sonepat.
3.The Director, Town & Country Planning Haryana, Sector 18, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986
Argued by: Sh. KL Pasrija Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondents no.1 and 2.
Respondent no.3 in person.
BEFORE- NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.
SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.
D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.
O R D E R
Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant has entered into an agreement to purchase one flat and has deposited Rs.6 lacs with the respondents from time to time. The complainant was allotted ID no.KFL-14826. The respondent demand Rs.3 lacs which was paid to the respondent by way of cancellation/adjustment of one such other allotment of client ID KFL-14812 namely Prem Kumar. But the respondents have failed to even allot a specific flat number to the complainant and have also not offered any possession of the flat to the complainants. The complainant has requested the respondents to refund his amount, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.
2. The respondents no.1 & 2 and 3 have appeared and they filed their separate written statement.
The respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that the complainant has moved an application for provisional allotment in group housing project in future scheme of the company and has deposited an advance registration money of Rs.3 lacs. The complainant failed to pursue his application for allotment of flat despite repeated telephonic calls of the respondents and now after a lapse of seven years the complainant is seeking refund of his money alongwith interest. There was no delay in completion of project on the part of the respondents. There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
The respondent no.3 in their written statement has submitted that the licence was granted to the colonizer i.e. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the respondent no.3 for filing the present complaint and it may be dismissed qua respondent no.3.
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. In the present case, the complainant has sought the relief to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.6 lacs alongwith interest and compensation. The respondent demand Rs.3 lacs which was paid to the respondent by way of cancellation/adjustment of one such other allotment of client ID KFL-14812 namely Prem Kumar.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitted that the complainant has moved an application for provisional allotment in group housing project in future scheme of the company and has deposited an advance registration money of Rs.3 lacs. The complainant failed to pursue his application for allotment of flat despite repeated telephonic calls of the respondents and now after a lapse of seven years the complainant is seeking refund of his money alongwith interest. There was no delay in completion of project on the part of the respondents. There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.
In the present case, it is proved that the complainant has deposited Rs.3 lacs on 20.2.2006 and Rs.3 lacs were paid to the respondent by way of cancellation/adjustment of one such other allotment of client ID KFL-14812 namely Prem Kumar. Shri Prem Kumar son of Banwari Lal has also tendered his affidavit in this regard. Except the above payment, the complainant has not paid any amount to the respondent.
In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions are given to the respondent no.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.6 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.6 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment 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) (DV Rathi Member) (Nagender Singh-President)
DCDRF, Sonepat. DCDRF Sonepat DCDRF, Sonepat.
Announced:27.04.2015
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.