Haryana

Sonipat

261/2014

SMT. MONIKA S/O PARVEEN BHARDWAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TDI INFRASTRUTURE PVT. LTD.,2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TDI,3. TDI CITY KUNDLI - Opp.Party(s)

NARESH SHARMA

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.261 of 2014

                             Instituted on:30.09.2014

                             Date of order:09.10.2015

 

Smt. Monika wife of Parveen Bhardwaj,r/o 6, First Floor, MCD Maternity Home, Opp.DDA Gym Park, Rohini, Sector 3, Delhi-85.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

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

2.The Managing Director, TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Customer Support Centre, G-7, Ground Floor, Outer Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naresh 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 on 25.12.2011 she got registered a floor at Tuscan City, Kundli and made the payment of Rs.11,54,000/- from time to time in respect of the said floor. But till date, the respondents have not allotted any unit to the complainant 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 herself has failed to pursue the booking due to timely fall in the real estate despite repeated calls from the side of the respondents. Hence, the complainant herself has failed to perform her part to get the allotment done in her favour. If the complainant is in hurry to get possession of built up floor/flat, she can accept allotment/possession of alternative unit in the same region and the respondents are ready to do the same. The complainant may immediately accept this offer within a reasonably short period subject to availability and variation of cost/size.

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 made the payment of Rs.11,54,000/- from time to time in respect of the floor in question to the respondents. But till date, the respondents have not allotted any unit to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on their part.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the complainant herself has failed to pursue the booking due to timely fall in the real estate despite repeated calls from the side of the respondents. Hence, the complainant herself has failed to perform her part to get the allotment done in her favour. If the complainant is in hurry to get possession of built up floor/flat, she can accept allotment/possession of alternative unit in the same region and the respondents are ready to do the same. The complainant may immediately accept this offer within a reasonably short period subject to availability and variation of cost/size.

        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 slight deficiency in service on the part of the complainant and the complainant herself is liable for her own act and deeds as the complainant has failed to pursue the booking despite repeated calls from the side of the respondents.  At the same time, this fact also cannot be ignored by this Forum that the respondents are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without providing any services to the complainant.  So, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions to refund the amount is given to the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.11,54,000/- (Rs. Eleven lacs fifty four 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:09.10.2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands==============

         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:08.10.2015