Haryana

Sonipat

231/2014

MRS. KAMAL KANTA W/O SURENDER SALUJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TDI INFRASTRUTURE LTD.,2. TDI INFRASTRUTURE LTD.,3. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.D. Sharma

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.231 of 2014

                             Instituted on:11.09.2014

                             Date of order:24.11.2015

 

Smt. Kamal Kanta wife of Surender Saluja, r/o H.No.1243, Sector 14, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd., through its Prop. DN Taneja, 10, Saheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Goal Market, New Delhi-110001.

2. TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd., G-7 Ground Floor Cannaught Circus, Opp. Madras Hotel, Block, New Delhi through its Prop. DN Taneja.

3. TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd., TDI building, GT road, Kundli, distt. Sonepat through its Prop. DN Taneja.

 

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RD Sharma 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 the respondents floated flats in tower S/W, U4 & 5, Y1 & Y2  in the area of village Nangal Kalan, Distt.Sonepat. The complainant also booked a flat of 4 bedrooms at the rate of Rs.1600/- per sq. feet on 26.2.2006 and total sum of Rs.12,40,104/- has been deposited by the complainant with the respondent vide customer ID no.KFL-11896 dated 1.11.2011.  When the complainant visited the site, the respondents’ official failed to show any development at the site.  The respondents are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without any development 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 the respondents have submitted that the complainant has got booked a flat of 4 BHK size in the present and future project of the company namely Kingsbury. So far as rate per sq. feet is concerned, the basic rate was Rs.1600 per sq. feet which excludes the EDC, EFFC, enhanced EDC and car parking etc. The respondents have fully developed the site and have delivered the physical possession of the flats to various applicants who had properly persuaded their registration.  The complainant himself did not pursue his application despite repeated calls and letters from the side of the respondents.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation 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 deposited huge amount of Rs. 12,40,104/- with the respondent vide customer ID no.KFL-11896 dated 1.11.2011.  When the complainant visited the site, the respondents’ official failed to show any development at the site.  The respondents are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without any development and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         The complainant in support of her case has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to C11.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present complaint is time barred.  Further the complainant has got booked a flat of 4 BHK size in the present and future project of the company namely Kingsbury. So far as rate per sq. feet is concerned, the basic rate was Rs.1600 per sq. feet which excludes the EDC, EFFC, enhanced EDC and car parking etc. The respondents have fully developed the site and have delivered the physical possession of the flats to various applicants who had properly persuaded their registration.  The complainant himself did not pursue his application despite repeated calls and letters from the side of the respondents.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         The respondents in their evidence have placed on record the documents Ex.R1 and R2.

         First of all, we decide the issue raised by the respondents that the present complaint is time barred.

         But after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length, we find no force in this issue because after the year 2011, the complainant never remain in touch with the respondents and similarly, after the year 2011, the respondents never raised any kind of demand from the complainant.  So, it cannot be said that the present complaint is time barred in any manner because the complainant and respondents are equally liable for their own acts and deeds.

         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 there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents because on one hand, they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant and on the other hand, the respondent has not developed the site in question and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  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 deposited amount 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 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: 24.11.2015