Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/316/2024

TDI INFRATECH LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURBAZ SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PUNEET TULI

07 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	321 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	05.09.2024
Date of Decision	:	07.11.2024

 

Gurbaz Singh. IFS (Retd), Son of Sajjan Singh, Resident of H.No. 4380, Block E. Sector-66B, Aerocity, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. TDI Infratech Ltd., SCO No. 51 52, Sector 118. Chandigarh-Kharar Road, TDI City. Mohali (Punjab) through its Chairman-Sh.Ravinder Kumar Taneja Regional Office: TDi Mall, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
2. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.. 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg. New Delhi 110001, through its MD-Sh.Akshay Taneja.
3. TDI City. Sector-117, Mohali. Kharar Road, Punjab 140307 through its Director-Sh.Ved Parkash.

…..Respondents/opposite parties

Present:-              Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant alongwith appellant in person.

                             Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the respondents-on VC.

===============================================================

Appeal No.	:	316 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	02.09.2024
Date of Decision	:	07.11.2024

 

1. M/s TDI Infratech Ltd., SCO No. 51 52, Sector 118. Chandigarh-Kharar Road, TDI City. Mohali (Punjab) through its Chairman/MD/Director Regional Office: TDI Mall, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
2. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg. New Delhi 110001, through its Chairman/MD/Director.
3. TDI City. Sector-117, Mohali. Kharar Road, Punjab through its Chairman/MD/Director 140307.

……Appellants/ opposite parties

V e r s u s

Gurbaz Singh. IFS (Retd), Son of Sajjan Singh, Resident of H.No. 4380, Block E. Sector-66B, Aerocity, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Respondent/ Complainant

 

Present:-              Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the appellants-on VC.

                             Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent alongwith respondent in person.

===============================================================

 

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

 

Prologue:-  

         

                   The complainant, a senior citizen with physical disabilities, has been tirelessly pursuing possession of a plot he lawfully purchased from the builder. This case in hand is thus a glaring example of highhandedness and gross misconduct of the builder, who despite receiving substantial payment (equivalent to about 70% of the total sale consideration of  a plot), 16 years back from the complainant, has failed to allot any plot to him.

                   Further, adding salt to the injuries of the complainant, still the builder is showing a complete lack of interest in addressing the grievances raised by him. Such disregard for the complainant's rights and interests has left him with no option but to seek intervention from the Consumer Commission. The protracted nature of this issue not only reflects poorly on the builder's practices but also highlights the broader implications for consumer rights in the real estate sector. The complainant, having exhausted all reasonable avenues for resolution, now turns to the  Consumer Commission in the hope of getting justice and reclaiming his rights. This situation underscores the urgent need for accountability in the construction industry and the protection of consumers from unethical practices.

2.           Appeal bearing no.321 of 2024 titled as Gurbaz Singh Versus TDI Infratech  Ltd. and others has been filed by the complainant- Gurbaz Singh, for enhancement/modification of the relief awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide order dated 20.06.2024, whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.321 of 2021  filed by him was allowed and the opposite parties/respondents were directed as under:-
   • In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite parties  are directed as under:-

1. to handover possession of the plot/unit in question to the complainant after receiving balance amount.
2. to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite parties  within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above shall carry interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of stipulated period of 45 days, till realisation, apart from compliance of directions at Sr. No.(i) & (iii) above…”

3.           At the same time, cross appeal bearing no.316 of 2024  titled as   M/s TDI Infratech  Ltd. and others   Versus Gurbaz Singh has been filed by opposite parties-M/s TDI Infratech  Ltd. for setting aside the order impugned dated 20.06.2024 passed by the District Commission.

 

Factual scenario:-

4.           Initially, a plot having area of 250 square yards was allotted to one Sh.Puneet Shukla, who had paid an amount of Rs.3 lacs to the opposite parties and he was registered as a purchaser vide M/P No.10622.
5.           The said Sh.Puneet Shukla  transferred his interests of the said plot, in favour of the present complainant-Sh.Gurbaz Singh son of Sh.Sajjan Singh. The opposite parties received Rs.25,000/- as transfer fees from the complainant, vide receipt dated 24.02.2007 (Annexure C-6/A-7) and the said transfer was accepted and registered in the records, vide endorsement, Annexure C-3 and the complainant was registered as Transferee and Nominee of Sh.Puneet Shukla for a plot of 250 square yards, under M/P No.10829. Fresh payment schedule was given to Sh.Gurbaz Singh and he was asked to make payment of Rs.16,25,000/- @Rs.6500/- per square yard. As per Annexure C-4/A-4 dated 04.12.2008, which is a certificate/receipt issued by the opposite parties, it is shown that only an amount Rs.2,06,250/- remained unpaid by the complainant.  Thereafter, as per the account statement dated 31.08.2013, Annexure C-10/A-6 issued by the opposite parties, fresh demand was raised to the tune of Rs.4,87,500/-, which includes basic cost of the plot to the tune of Rs.16,25,000/- plus EDC of Rs.4,12,500/- and the total sale consideration of the plot has been shown as Rs.20,37,500/- out of which total received amount has been shown as Rs.13,87,500/- and balance amount of Rs.4,87,500/- stood pending towards the complainant and also an amount of Rs.1,62,500/- plus IFMS, club charges and registration charges has been shown as due on offer of possession of the said plot. It has been specifically averred in the complaint that whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties for delivery of possession of the plot, they showed their inability to do so. The opposite parties  vide letter dated 11.07.2015, Annexure C-13 asked the complainant to take allotment of the plot but when the complainant  approached them, he was informed that the opposite parties have already allotted the good location plot to various buyers and showed him a  plot near the sewerage drain. It was further alleged that the opposite parties asked the complainant to pay enhanced and escalated price of Rs.21,86,000/- despite the fact that earlier the opposite parties  vide letter dated 21.8.2013 asked the complainant to pay Rs.4,87,500/-. It was averred that despite receiving huge amount from the complainant, the opposite parties  have failed to deliver possession of the plot till date.  Hence consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.

 

Written reply filed by the opposite parties:-

6.           The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. However, they admitted the factual matrix of the case qua receipt of amount from the complainant towards sale of plot in the project in question and took a legal objection regarding limitation. It was  stated in the reply that the complainant purchased the plot from one Sh.Puneet Shukla. At the time of transfer, the complainant was well aware of the situation and he still preferred to go ahead with the transfer  inheriting all the  uncertaintities associated with the said plot with the conscious and voluntary decision. The opposite parties had no role in the subsequent transfer of plots. After the initial allotment, the opposite parties were just facilitator for the transfer and the complainant chose to take the said plot without any interference or any kind of persuasion from the opposite parties. It is specific case of the opposite parties that vide letter dated 10.12.2014 the complainant was called for allotment of a plot but he being defaulter never came for the same.
7.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in his complaint and controverted those contained in written version of opposite parties.
8.           The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Commission.
9.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above, out of which these appeals have arisen.      

 

Arguments:-

10.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record.
11.           Counsel for the appellant/complainant in Appeal bearing no.321 of 2024 titled as Gurbaz Singh Versus TDI Infratech  Ltd. and others contended that:-
    1.  though the District Commission hold the respondents-TDI deficient in providing service and guilty of adopting unfair trade practice and directed them to deliver possession of plot, yet, it failed to award any compensation by way of interest for the period of delay in delivery of possession;
    2. that even the compensation for mental agony and harassment and also  cost of litigation awarded are on the lower side.
    3. By way of moving application bearing no.799 of 2024 it has also been contended by the appellant/complainant that direction be given to the  respondents-TDI to keep one plot  measuring 250 square yards reserved out of plots available with them as  per layout plan dated 13.01.2023.

         

12.           On the other hand, counsel for the respondents-TDI contended that the order impugned passed by the District Commission suffers various illegalities and needs to be set aside because:-

 

1. the consumer complaint was barred by limitation;
2. the consumer complaint was bad for nonjoinder of Mr.Puneet Shukla as necessary party, from whom the complainant had  purchased the plot in resale;
3. the District Commission was not vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the main consumer complaint;
4. the District Commission failed to notice that the complainant himself failed to come forward for allotment of plot in the  project in question and make the balance payment in respect of the same, despite the fact that he was asked to do so, vide letter dated 10.12.2014.

Observations of this Commission:-

13.            We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the material available on the record and also gone through the grounds of appeal of both the parties. In this case, following points have emerged for determination:-

 

1. Whether the District Commission had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint?
2. Whether the the consumer complaint was bad for nonjoinder of Mr.Puneet Shukla as necessary party, from whom the complainant had  purchased the plot in resale?
3. Whether the District Commission failed to notice that the complainant himself failed to come forward for allotment of plot in the  project in question and make the balance payment in respect of the same, despite the fact that he was asked to do so, vide letter dated 10.12.2014.
4. To what relief(s) the parties are entitled to?

 

14.           We would like to discuss each point in seriatum hereunder:-

 

Territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission:-

15.           First we will deal with the contention raised by counsel for the respondents-TDI that the District Commission was not vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the main consumer complaint, it may be stated here that since perusal of the payment receipt dated 24.02.2007, Annexure C-6,  in the sum of Rs.25000/- qua transfer fees, stood issued by the respondents-TDI from their Regional Office at SCO No.1098-1099, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh,  which falls with the territory of the District Commission, as such, it was having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the main consumer complaint, in view of the provisions of Section 34 (2) a to c of the CPA 2019, which says a complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,  the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. As such, contention raised in this regard being devoid of merit, stands rejected.  

 

Objection qua non joinder of necessary party:-

16.           Now coming to the contention raised by counsel for the respondents-TDI that consumer complaint was bad for nonjoinder of Mr.Puneet Shukla as necessary party, from whom the complainant had  purchased the plot in resale. We have considered this contention but it carries no weight. The opposite parties have accepted this transfer of the plot and they received transfer fees of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant, vide receipt dated 24.02.2007 (Annexure C-6), and made a transfer endorsement, (Annexure C-3) in their record. Thereafter the balance/part consideration was received from the complainant. Thus, the complainant had established that after payment of transfer fees aforesaid, he had a direct contractual relationship with the respondents-TDI qua the plot in question. Under these circumstances, in our considered view the consumer complaint was rightly filed by the appellant/complainant  against the respondents-TDI  directly, without needing to involve previous owner. As such, contention raised in this regard also being devoid of merit, stands rejected. 

 

Objection qua allotment of plot:-

17.           Now we will deal with the main contention raised by the  respondents-TDI to the effect that allotment of plot could not be made to the complainant as he failed to come forward for the same, despite sending him letter dated 10.12.2014. Admittedly, no completion certificate from the competent authority was issued to the respondent-TDI. It is the definite case of the complainant that on receipt of the letter from the respondents/opposite parties, he visited the office of the respondents-TDI a number of times, for allotment of plot but he was shown some plots in the vicinity of agriculture fields and that too near a low lying drainage area and as such, he made a request for allotment of a plot in a suitable location, which has not been acceded till date. This fact is also found mentioned in the legal notice dated 05.02.2021, Annexure C-15 having been sent by the appellant/complainant  to the respondents-TDI in the matter but there is nothing on record to establish that the said notice was even responded what to speak of redressal of grievance of the appellant/complainant. At the same time, it is also very significant to mention here that the respondents-TDI have failed to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that they obtained all necessary approvals/sanctions before selling the plots to the general public including the appellant/complainant, as required under the agreement dated 26.05.2006, Annexure R-3 and also the Notification dated 11.04.2008, Annexure R-4. 

                   Be that as it may, it is coming out from the record that against the total sale consideration of Rs.20,37,500/- the respondents-TDI have already received substantial amount of Rs.14,12,500/- i.e. about 70%, as far as back in the year 2007-2008, but the appellant/complainant is still empty handed. There is also nothing on record that the respondents-TDI have cancelled the application of appellant/complainant and have refunded the amount paid by him but on the other hand, admittedly, they are utilizing the said amount till date. 

                   As stated above, the appellant/complainant by way of moving application bearing no.799 of 2024 has made a request to give directions to the respondents-TDI to keep one plot  measuring 250 square yards reserved out of plots available with them as  per layout plan dated 13.01.2023. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondents-TDI are under obligation to allot plot to the complainant in the project in question. The District Commission was also right in holding so. However, we further clarify that the appellant/complainant is held entitled for allotment and delivery of possession of a plot measuring 250 square yards in the project in question at the original rate/the then rate prevailing in the year 2007 only, available under layout plan dated 13.01.2023. We also further make it clear that the  respondents-TDI  shall not sell any residential or commercial units in the project in question, until a plot is made  available to the appellant/complainant, as ordered above. Resultantly, miscellaneous application bearing no.799 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of, accordingly.

 

Compensation for delayed possession:-

18.           One can well imagine the plight of the appellant/complainant, whose hard earned money has been utilized by the respondents-TDI for such a long time starting from the year 2007.  Though the District Commission, after going through the record of the case, has also come to the conclusion that the respondents-TDI are deficient in providing service and also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice, and ordered the respondents-TDI to deliver possession of the plot to the appellant/complainant, yet, it failed to award any compensation for the period of delay in delivery of possession of the plot. The Consumer Protection Act has been made to safeguard the consumer rights. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Versus Himanshu Arora, Civil  Appeal  No.11097 of 2018, decided on 19 November, 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order of the Hon’ble National Commission awarding interest @9% p.a. for the period of delay in delivery of actual physical possession. Thereafter also, similar rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. Versus Sushila Devi, Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019, decided on 26 February, 2019,  by making reference to the earlier order passed by it in Himanshu Arora’s case (supra). Furthermore, in Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture, Consumer Case No. 12 of 2017, decided on 04 May 2022 also, the Hon’ble National Commission awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. In Shreya Kumar & 11 Ors. Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & 3 Ors., Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 05 May 2022, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. Recently also, the Hon’ble National Commission in Anshuman Sinha & Anr. Versus M/s. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., Consumer Case No. 1245 of 2016, decided on 01 February 2024 has awarded interest @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till actual physical possession is delivered. Relevant part of the  said order is reproduced hereunder:-

 

“…..Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in terms aforesaid to the extent that the opposite party shall pay delay compensation @ 9% p.a. on the total amount paid by the complainant with effect from 05.09.2011, that is expected date of delivery till the date of offer of possession, that is 24.12.2015 within a period of three months…”

 

It is therefore held that in the present case also, the appellant/complainant is entitled to get compensation for the period of delay, by way of interest @9% p.a. on the amount deposited by him, from expiry of reasonable period of three years from the date of transfer of the plot in question in favour of the appellant/complainant i.e. from 24.02.2010 (three years from the date of transfer of plot being 24.02.2007) till possession is delivered to him, after completing all the basic facilities and amenities and obtaining completion certificate from the competent authorities. The District Commission fell into an error in not awarding this delayed compensation to the appellant/ complainant.

 

Compensation for mental agony and harassment:-

19.           Now coming to the plea taken by Counsel for the appellant-complainant regarding enhancement of compensation and also litigation cost awarded by the District Commission is concerned, it may be stated here that we are of the considered view that compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment as also litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/- awarded by the District Commission are on the lower side, keeping in view the facts of this case. The appellant-complainant had deposited the amount in question as far as back in the year starting from 2007, with a hope to have his own house, yet, he was deprived of the same, at the hands of the respondents-TDI, in the manner explained above. Under these circumstances, if compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- is awarded to the appellant-complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him and also litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.35,000/- that will meet the ends of justice. To this extent also, the order impugned needs modification.

 

Objection qua limitation:-

20.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it has been held above that the respondents-TDI  have failed to deliver a legal and valid possession of the plot  to the appellant/complainant  within a reasonable period after the date of transfer thereof or even thereafter till the date of filing of the consumer complaint, as such, there was a continuing cause of action in favour of the appellant/complainant  to file the consumer complaint before the District Commission, in view of law laid down in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal   Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC),  wherein it was held that when actual physical possession of the residential units/plots is not delivered, there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee/buyer. Objection raised in this regard, as such, stands rejected.

 

Conclusions/reliefs

21.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, needs modification. Resultantly, Appeal bearing no.321 of 2024 titled as Gurbaz Singh Versus TDI Infratech  Ltd. and others stands partly allowed. The order dated 20.06.2024  passed by the District Commission is modified and the respondent-M/s TDI Infratech  Ltd. and others, jointly and severally are directed as under:-

 

1. To deliver physical possession of a plot measuring 250 square yards in the project in question, at the original rate/the then rate prevailing in the year 2007 only, available under layout plan dated 13.01.2023, to the appellant/complainant  complete in all respects i.e. after providing all basic facilities & amenities and after obtaining completion certificate from the competent Authorities, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on receipt of balance sale consideration, without charging any delayed interest from the appellant/ complainant thereon.  
2. To pay to the appellant/complainant, compensation by way of interest @9% p.a., in one-go, on the entire sale consideration received in respect of the plot in question from 24.02.2010 (three years from the date of transfer being 24.02.2007)  till 31.10.2024 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the entire accumulated amount of compensation from 24.02.2010  till 31.10.2024  aforesaid shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days aforesaid, till this entire accumulated amount is paid to the appellant/complainant.
3. To pay to the appellant/complainant, compensation by way of  interest @9% p.a. on the entire received sale consideration, w.e.f. 01.11.2024, onwards (per month), by the 10th of the following month till compliance of directions given in sub-para no.(i) above. 
4. To pay to the appellant/complainant, compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment, deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice; and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of  default till realization.

22.           Consequently, appeal bearing no.316 of 2024  titled as   M/s TDI Infratech  Ltd. and others   Versus Gurbaz Singh stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  However, the  respondents-TDI  are restrained from selling any residential or commercial units/plots in the project in question, until a plot is made  available to the appellant/complainant, as ordered above.
23.           All other  pending applications in these cases stand disposed of, accordingly.
24.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in the connected case file, forthwith.
25.           One certified copy of this order be also sent to the District Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, to ensure the compliance of directions given to the respondents-TDI in para no.22 above, qua restraining from selling any residential or commercial units in the project in question, until a plot is made available to the appellant/complainant.
26.           The concerned files be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in these appeals, be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

07.11.2024

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg