Haryana

Sonipat

CC/185/2014

1. PREETI D/O BALWAN SINGH,2. BALWAN SINGH S/O HOSHIYAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ,2. THE BRANCH MANAGER TDI - Opp.Party(s)

J.B. BHARDAWAJ

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.185 of 2014

                                Instituted on:28.07.2014

                                Date of order:19.07.2016

 

1.Ms. Preeti daughter of Balwan Singh, 2.Balwan Singh son of Hoshiar Singh, both residents of Gali NO.1, Jeewan Vihar, Murthal road, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainants.

                           Versus

1.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., TDI House G-7, Outer Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.The Branch Manager, TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Kundli Border, Distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JB Sharma Adv. for complainants.

           Sh. Virender Tyagi, Adv. for respondents.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

           J.L. Gupta……………………………………………………………Member

O R D E R

            The complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that they have applied for the allotment of a floor of 1164 sq. yards in the present and future project of the respondents and have deposited total Rs.9,07,790/- with the respondents from time to time.  But the respondents have not started the construction at the site and have not offered the possession whereas 30 months have already passed.  The complainants are ready to make the payment of dues as per status of construction. So, in this way, the respondents have rendered deficient services to the complainants and due to this, they have come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainants have issued a cheque no.555227 dated 28.2.2012, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and due to this, the respondents have issued a cancellation letter dated 10.3.2012.  Thereafter the complainants have deposited the amount vide another cheque.  The complainants never approached the respondents to get the allotment of flat.  The construction work at the site is in full swings.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainants are  not entitled for any relief & compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the ld. Counsel for 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 argued his case vehemently by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents that they have applied for the allotment of a floor of 1164 sq. yards in the present and future project of the respondents and have deposited total Rs.9,07,790/- with the respondents from time to time.  But the respondents have not started the construction at the site and have not offered the possession whereas 30 months have already passed.  The complainants are ready to make the payment of dues as per status of construction. So, in this way, the respondents have rendered deficient services to the complainants.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainants have issued a cheque no.555227 dated 28.2.2012, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and due to this, the respondents have issued a cancellation letter dated 10.3.2012.  Thereafter the complainants have deposited the amount vide another cheque.  The complainants never approached the respondents to get the allotment of flat.  The construction work at the site is in full swings.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

 

          In the present case, the complainant has deposited the amount with the respondents almost in the year 2012 and thereafter, the complainant has not deposited any other amount with the respondents.  It is also strange enough on the part of the respondents that after depositing the amount by the complainant in the year 2012, they never demanded any amount from the complainant.  So, in our view, both the parties remained reluctant towards their rights.  The dishonour of the cheque has no nexus with the cancellation letter dated 10.3.2012 because it is admitted by the respondents that the complainants have deposited the amount vide another cheque.  The respondents are utilizing the huge amount of the complainants for their personal gains and they have not started the construction at the site and have not offered the possession to the complainants particularly when they were/are ready to make the payment of dues as per status of construction.  So, there is patent deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complainants are entitled to get some sort of relief against the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the entire deposited amount to the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its 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 costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)   (J.L.Gupta)               (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF                DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 19.07.2016