Haryana

Sonipat

470/2013

tilak raj s/o ram kishan sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,2. IN TIME PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.D.GAUR

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.470 of 2013

                             Instituted on:19.11.2013

                             Date of order:01.10.2015

 

Tilak Raj son of Ram Kishan Sharma, resident of village Rathdhana, distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd., through its Director/Chairman having registered office at 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-01.

2.In Time Promoters (P) Ltd. through its Authorized Person, Customer Support Centre, G-7, Ground Floor, Connaught Circus (Opp. Madras Hotel Block) New Delhi.

3. TDI City, Kundli, through its Manager.

 

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RD Gaur Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondents.

         

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 he booked a two bedroom residential flat with the respondent no.1 at TDI City, Kundli and he has deposited a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from time to time with the respondents.   The respondent no.1 has allotted residential flat no.U3-0702 with an area of 1110 Sq. feet to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 20.1.2009 and thereafter, the complainant has become entitled to get physical possession of the same, but physical possession of the flat has never been given to the complainant despite his repeated requests and reminders and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant himself has failed to maintain the financial discipline with the respondents as the complainant has failed to make the payment of installments regularly.  As per terms and conditions no.9 of the allotment letter, it was not mandatory on the part of the respondents to convey such demands and it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to clear his dues within time. So, it cannot be said that there was any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant has earlier filed a civil suit and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.7.2013 but the Hon’ble Civil Court only allowed the complainant to file a fresh suit and not a complaint.  Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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 booked a two bedroom residential flat with the respondent no.1 at TDI City, Kundli and he has deposited a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from time to time with the respondents.   The respondent no.1 has allotted residential flat no.U3-0702 with an area of 1110 Sq. feet to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 20.1.2009 and thereafter, the complainant has become entitled to get physical possession of the same, but physical possession of the flat has never been given to the complainant despite his repeated requests and reminders and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the complainant himself has failed to maintain the financial discipline with the respondents as the complainant has failed to make the payment of installments regularly.  As per terms and conditions no.9 of the allotment letter, it was not mandatory on the part of the respondents to convey such demands and it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to clear his dues within time. So, it cannot be said that there was any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant has earlier filed a civil suit and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.7.2013 but the Hon’ble Civil Court only allowed the complainant to file a fresh suit and not a complaint.

         After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that the intricate question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint. But in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents to refund the deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rs.eight lacs fifty thousands) to the complainant 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 disposed off.

         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:01.10.2015.