Haryana

StateCommission

A/551/2016

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANITA JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.MONGA

23 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      551 of 2016

Date of Institution:      15.06.2016

Date of Decision :       23.08.2017

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited (formerly M/s Intime Promoters (P) Ltd) through its authorised Signatory Amit Batra, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Anita Jain wife of Sumat Jain, Resident of House No.M-164, Vasundhara Appt. Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-95.

Presently at 253, Rose Abbey Dr. Kington Ontario K7K 0A2, Canada through her brother and Power of attorney holder Sanjeev Aggarwal.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate on behalf of Shri S.K. Monga, counsel for appellant.

                             Shri Sudhir Gupta, on behalf of Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated May 03^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).    

2.                M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited- Opposite Party (appellant herein) launched its residential Township project namely TDI City, Kundli, Sonipat in Haryana in the year 2005. Mrs.Anita Jain-complainant (respondent herein) got booked a plot measuring 350 square yards in TDI City in the month of February, 2005, bearing No.A-A11/22. At the time of booking, an amount of Rs.6,10,000/- was paid to the opposite party by the complainant. The total sale price of the plot was Rs.16,62,500/- at the rate of Rs.4750/- per square yard. The complainant made payment of the installments of the remaining sale price amount regularly and paid total amount of Rs.21,15,798/- as detailed in paragraph No.6 of the complaint. The last installment was paid on July 15^th, 2010. The opposite party was required to hand over possession of the plot within two years which could be extended up to six more months for any reasons, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases. The complainant several times requested the opposite party for execution of the buyer’s agreement and to tell the tentative date of delivery of possession.

3.                In the month of November, 2014, the opposite party asked the complainant for execution of the buyer’s agreement but the opposite party offered allotment only of an alternative plot and the possession of the already allotted plot would not be delivered to the complainant. Despite service of the legal notice dated December 15^th, 2014, the opposite party did not deliver possession of the plot allotted to her. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to offer possession of plot bearing No.A-A11/22, measuring 350 square yards in TDI City, Sonipat to the complainant and accept the remaining sale price amount, if any, from the  complainant at the booking rate of Rs.4750/- per square yard; to pay interest on the amount already deposited by the complainant with effect from the month of March, 2008 till the delivery of possession as compensation on account of delay in offer of possession; to pay an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite party in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is barred by limitation; that the complainant has not come before the District Forum with clean hands and that the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The complainant herself has approached the opposite party for allotment of a residential plot measuring 350 square yards in the project launched by the opposite party vide Advance Registration Form  dated January 24^th, 2005. The complainant has not paid installments regularly and failed to maintain the financial discipline with the opposite party. It was mentioned in clear words in the foot note of the registration form that the price External Development Charges (EDC)  and Preferential Location Charges (PLC) etc. as detailed in paragraph No.6 of the written version, have not been made by the complainant in time and committed defaults. In this way, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the complaint and prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                Complainant filed rejoinder controverting the pleas taken in the written version and reasserting the contents of the complaint. It is also pleaded that the complainant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum after completion of 36 months from the date of initial agreement till possession of the plot is delivered.

6.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directed the opposite party to allot plot bearing No.A-A11/22, measuring 350 square yards in TDI City, Sonipat to the complainant after accepting the balance payment, if any, from the complainant without any interest, penalty or surcharge etc. Directions were also given that if it is not possible for the opposite party to allot the above mentioned plot to the complainant, in that event, the opposite party shall allot an alternative plot of the same size, at the same rate in the same block or other block at the better preferential location in TDI City, Sonipat, to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony, and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The opposite party was also directed to make compliance of the order within one month.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2016 the opposite party has filed the present appeal bearing No.551 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

10.              In the year 2005 the opposite party – M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited launched its residential township project namely TDI City, Kundli at Sonipat. Complainant Anita Jain got booked a residential plot measuring 350 square yards mentioning total basic sale price of the plot as Rs.16,52,500/- at the rate of Rs.4750/- per square yard. The complainant made payment of the booking amount of Rs.6,10,000/- vide receipt dated February 11^th, 2005 (Exhibit C-2). The complainant in this way, vide letter mark R-1 got herself registered for allotment of the plot. It is admitted fact that the complainant made payment of an amount of Rs.21,15,758/- up to July 15^th, 2010. It is evident from the receipts Exhibit C-3 (6) to Exhibit C-3(15).  The remaining basic sale price amount was to be paid in installments as mentioned in document Exhibit C-3(2). Much discussion is not needed of the above mentioned receipts regarding payment of the installments because the opposite party has admitted this fact in the written version. The installments of the sale price amount were paid within time. Version of the opposite party in this case is that the complainant is not entitled for delivery of possession as well as allotment of plot No.A-A11/22 in TDI City, Kundli, Sonipat or any other plot because the complainant has committed defaults regarding payments of the installments of the basic sale price amount. The complainant failed to make payment of the amount as per Schedule-II of Payment Plan (Annexure R-1) Payment of External Development Charges and Preferential Location Charges. Apart from the basic sale price amount, the complainant was required to make payment of the external development charges as well as preferential location charges. In the letter Exhibit C-3 (1) dated May 17^th, 2005, the complainant was required to deposit an amount of Rs.1,13,750/- on account of External Development Charges etc. It is evident from letter Exhibit C-3 (2) dated May 17^th, 2005 that the complainant was required to make payment of the above mentioned amount mentioning that External Development Charges payable by the complainant is at the rate of Rs.650/- per square yard. Payment Plan of the EDC etc. is separately mentioned. From the record on the file it is clear that as and when the opposite party raised demand, the complainant made payment of the installments of the sale price amount and other amount claimed by the opposite party. In fact, the complainant could not make payment of the amount which was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession dated March 20^th, 2006.

11.              The complainant was ready and willing to make payment of the amount but the opposite party was not willing to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant. In connection with delivery of possession of the plot, the complainant served a legal notice Exhibit C-4 also upon the opposite party on December 15^th, 2014.  In response to service of the legal notice, instead of delivery of possession of the plot, the opposite party offered delivery of possession of another plot vide letter dated June 19^th, 2015 (Exhibit C-6) mentioning that due to unforeseen technical reasons beyond the control of the opposite party, possession of plot earlier allotted cannot be delivered. The complainant was told that there was some dispute regarding that property. The complainant was told that if he was willing to obtain possession at the earliest, an alternative plot can be allotted.   

12.              From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it clearly appears that the opposite party was willing to deliver possession of alternative plot after payment of the remaining sale price amount. Facing this situation, learned District Forum passed the impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2016. Directions were given to the opposite party to deliver possession of plot No.A-A11/22 measuring 350 square yards in TDI City, Sonipat after accepting the balance payment without any interest, penalty or surcharge etc. The opposite party was also given an option to allot and deliver possession of an alternative plot to the complainant of the same size at the same rate in same block or other block at the better preferential location in TDI City, Sonipat to the satisfaction of the complainant if delivery of possession and allotment of plot No.A-A11/22 is not possible. It appears that the complainant is satisfied with the impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, as the complainant did not prefer to file appeal against that order. The opposite party has also given an option to deliver possession of the original plot or the alternative plot after receiving payment, as mentioned in the impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2016. The opposite party can deliver possession after receiving the balance amount, if any. Anyhow, as the opposite party has already received an amount of Rs.21,15,798/-, the grievance of the complainant is genuine and the opposite party is liable to deliver possession of the plot as per directions given in the order as soon as possible.

13.              Keeping in mind all these circumstances and as the complainant is also satisfied with the terms and conditions mentioned in the order, we feel there is no illegality or invalidity in the impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. The findings of the learned District Forum awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony, and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses are also justified. 

14.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, we find no illegality and invalidity in the impugned order dated May 03^rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum.  Resultantly, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

15.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 23.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL