Haryana

Sonipat

218/2014

MAHENDER SINGH S/O KARAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE DIRECTOR TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE,2. MANAGER MARKETING OFFICE TDI - Opp.Party(s)

ANKUR TYAGI

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.218 of 2014

                             Instituted on:28.08.2014

                             Date of order:28.04.2016

 

Mahender Singh Yadav son of Karan Singh, r/o H.No.393, Sector 15, Gurgaon through Power of attorney holder Ishwar Singh son of Nand Ram. r/o H.No.358/19, Pancham Nagar, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.The Director, TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Registered office

   9, Tolstoy marg, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2.Manager Marketing office TDI Kundli, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Ankur Tyagi, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondents.

         

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

       

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has booked a flat measuring 1224 Sq. feet (approximately)  and has deposited in advance an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as registration charges vide cheque dated 25.6.2011 and the respondents have allotted customer ID KEF/00266/11-12.  The complainant has paid Rs.3,50,000/- as booking amount in which Rs.50000/- was excess.  The complainant for the payment of Rs.407768/- has issued two cheques i.e. cheque no.917883 dated 31.10.2011 for Rs.1,80,000/- and cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 worth Rs.1,77,668/- and at that time, there was sufficient balance in the account no.3274000100025109 of Mehtab Singh Saini, but the respondents deposited the cheque on 4.11.2011.  The complainant was not informed about the dishonor of the cheque.  The complainant has approached the respondent no.1 several times but he has not allotted the flat to the complainant, whereas the complainant came to know that the cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 for Rs.177668/- has been dishonoured and after coming to know the same, the complainant has issued another cheque no.352335 dated 21.4.2012 for the  amount of Rs.177996/-.  After issuing the said cheque also, the complainant has requested the respondents to allot the flat but of no use and the respondents said that the booking of the complainant has been cancelled as the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured.  The complainant is still ready to pay the remaining amount with interest.  The respondents have rendered deficient services which caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that the basic cost of the flat was Rs.23 lacs excluding the charges.  The complainant has deposited the booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and thereafter he deposited two cheques i.e. of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.177668/-, but the cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 was dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient. The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the registration form.  The complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and he has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents 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 booked a flat measuring 1224 Sq. feet (approximately)  and has deposited in advance an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as registration charges vide cheque dated 25.6.2011 and the respondents have allotted customer ID KEF/00266/11-12.  The complainant has paid Rs.3,50,000/- as booking amount in which Rs.50000/- was excess.  The complainant for the payment of Rs.407768/- has issued two cheques i.e. cheque no.917883 dated 31.10.2011 for Rs.1,80,000/- and cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 worth Rs.1,77,668/- and at that time, there was sufficient balance in the account no.3274000100025109 of Mehtab Singh Saini, but the respondents deposited the cheque on 4.11.2011.  The complainant was not informed about the dishonor of the cheque.  The complainant has approached the respondent no.1 several times but he has not allotted the flat to the complainant, whereas the complainant came to know that the cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 for Rs.177668/- has been dishonoured and after coming to know the same, the complainant has issued another cheque no.352335 dated 21.4.2012 for the  amount of Rs.177996/-.  After issuing the said cheque also, the complainant has requested the respondents to allot the flat but of no use and the respondents said that the booking of the complainant has been cancelled as the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured.  The complainant is still ready to pay the remaining amount with interest.  The respondents have rendered deficient services which caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the basic cost of the flat was Rs.23 lacs excluding the charges.  The complainant has deposited the booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and thereafter he deposited two cheques i.e. of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.177668/-, but the cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 was dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient. The complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the registration form.  The complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and he has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents.

         We find force in the contentions raised by the ld.counsel for the respondents.  The complainant himself has admitted in para no.3 of the complaint that after coming to know that the cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 amounting to Rs.1,77,668/- has been dishonoured, the complainant has issued another cheque bearing no.352335 dated 21.4.2012 for the amount of Rs.177996/-.  The complainant has placed on record the copy of the above said cheque marked as Annexure C5. But there is no proof from the side of the complainant to prove that the above said cheque was ever handed over to the respondents and the complainant has also failed to produce any receipt which may go to prove that the cheque no.3523335 dated 21.4.2012 issued against the cheque which was dishonoured, was ever received by the respondents. Further it was the payment which was made by the complainant at the time of allotment and due to dishonor to the cheque, the allotment could not be made by the respondents to the complainant.  So, in our view, for the lapses on the part of the complainant himself, the respondents cannot be made to suffer.

         We have perused the terms and conditions as mentioned in the back side of Registration Form i.e. Annexure A.  Terms and Condition no.7 fully supports the case of the respondents which is reproduced below:-

7.       That the timely and due payment as per the payment plan is the essence of allotment. In the event of delay in making timely payment interest at the rate of 18% p.a. shall be charged on the delay till its realization.  If delay in payment exceeds three months from the due date, the allotment may be cancelled at the sole discretion of the company without giving any prior notice to the applicant.

         So, the action taken by the respondents in the matter of the complainant is legally justified because the complainant himself has not paid the requisite amount at the time of allotment.  The complainant has issued the cheque no.788435 dated 1.11.2011 for Rs.177668/- which was dishonoured and the complainant against the bounced cheque has issued cheque no.352335 dated 21.4.2012 for Rs.177996/- i.e. after about 4 months and 21 days.  So, in our view, the complainant is not entitled for any allotment and the complainant has also failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         However, in our view the ends of justice would be fully met if directions for the refund of deposited amount of the complainant is given to the respondents since they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/-  to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual 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)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:28.04.2016