Haryana

Sonipat

CC/151/2015

ANITA JAIN W/O SUMAT JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S T.D.I. INFRASTRUCTURE - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH GARG

03 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.151 of 2015

                             Instituted on:08.05.2015

                             Date of order:03.05.2016

 

Anita Jain wife of Sumat Jain, r/o H.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.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., (formerly M/s Intime Promoterts (P) Ltd.) 9, Kasturba Gandhi Martg, New Delhi-110001   Also at  10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.

                                      ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ashish Garg 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 respondent through her real brother and power of attorney holder Sanjeev Aggarwal alleging therein that the complainant Anita Jain got booked a residential plot measuring 350 Sq. yards at the rate of Rs.4750/- per sq. yard. The total cost of the plot was agreed as Rs.16,62,500/-. The respondent allotted plot bearing no.A-A11/22 measuring 350 Sq. yards in TDI City vide customer ID 10860, whereas since 2/2005 the complainant has regularly made the payment of installments  and the complainant has already made the total payment of Rs.21,15,758/- till 7/2010 and despite this, the respondent has intentionally delayed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant.  In 9/2014, the complainant through her representative approached the respondent and enquired about the possession of the plot and then it was told that plot buyer agreement be executed and possession will be given very soon.   In the first week of 11/2014, it was openly said by the respondent that the company will not allot any plot to the complainant as the land on which the said plot is situated is a disputed land.  The complainant then served the respondent with legal notice dated 15.12.2014 and requested the respondent to pay interest  at the rate of 18% per annum on total deposited amount of Rs.21,15,758/- from 3/2008 (period of three years from the date of booking i.e. 11.2.2005, excluded for maximum development period) till the date of possession of the plot and further to deliver the possession of the plot, but of no use as neither the notice was replied by the respondent nor the possession of the plot was given to the complainant by the respondent  and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply the respondent has submitted that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant herself has approached the respondent to register her for allotment of a residential plot of 350 sq. yards in the project of the respondent vide advance registration form dated 24.1.2005. The complainant has not paid the installments regularly since inception. The complainant has failed to maintain the financial discipline with the respondent. It was notified in the foot note of the registration form that the prices, EDC charges and PLC are subject to changes and availability. As per payment plan opted by the complainant, she might have deposited all the installments, except the installment due on possession by March 20, 2006 but she has failed to perform her part. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The company has valid license for developing the colony from the competent authority.  If the complainant is in immediate need to get the possession of the plot, she can get the alternative plot in the same project. 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 total cost of the plot in question was agreed as Rs.16,62,500/-. The respondent allotted plot bearing no.A-A11/22 measuring 350 Sq. yards at the rate of Rs.4750/- per sq. yards in TDI City vide customer ID 10860 whereas since 2/2005. the complainant has regularly made the payment of installments  and the complainant has already made the total payment of Rs.21,15,758/- till 7/2010 and despite this, the respondent has intentionally delayed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant.  In 9/2014, the complainant through her representative approached the respondent and enquired about the possession of the plot and then it was told that plot buyer agreement be executed and possession will be given very soon.   In the first week of 11/2014, it was openly said by the respondent that the company will not allot any plot to the complainant as the land on which the said plot is situated is a disputed land.  The complainant then served the respondent with legal notice dated 15.12.2014 and requested the respondent to pay interest  and further to deliver the possession of the plot, but of no use as neither the notice was replied by the respondent nor the possession of the plot was given to the complainant by the respondent  and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         The complainant in support of her case has

placed on record the documents Ex.C1, C2, C3(i) to C3(15), C4, C4(A), C5 to C7 and C7(A).

         We have perused the contents of the rejoinder filed by the ld. Counsel for the complainant to the reply filed by the respondent.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant herself has approached the respondent to register her for allotment of a residential plot of 350 sq. yards in the project of the respondent vide advance registration form dated 24.1.2005. The complainant has not paid the installments regularly since inception. The complainant has failed to maintain the financial discipline with the respondent. It was notified in the foot note of the registration form that the prices, EDC charges and PLC are subject to changes and availability. As per payment plan opted by the complainant, she might have deposited all the installments, except the installment due on possession by March 20, 2006 but she has failed to perform her part. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The company has valid license for developing the colony from the competent authority.  If the complainant is in immediate need to get the possession of the plot, she can get the alternative plot in the same project. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

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

         But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent because the complainant has already deposited Rs. 21,15,758/- till 7/2010 and despite this, the respondent has intentionally delayed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant. So, how the respondent can take such a baseless plea that the complainant has failed to maintain the financial discipline with the respondent.

         This Forum has also failed to understand the plea of the respondent which has been taken in the written statement that if the complainant is in immediate need to get the possession of the plot, she can get the alternative plot in the same project.  Why and for what, the plea to allot an alternative plot in the same project has been taken by the respondent. Why the respondent forget that they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant particularly when they have not provided any services to the complainant.  In our view, the complainant cannot be left at the hands of the builders for an indefinite period.  If the complainant has deposited the huge amount with the respondent, then it was also obligatory duty on the part of the respondent to give some sort of relief to the complainant. But in the case in hand, the respondent has left the complainant to do what she can as they have even no fear of the law of the land.  So, in our view, definitely the complainant is entitled to get interest on the amount which is lying deposited with the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay interest/delayed penalty at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount lying deposited with the respondent with effect from March 2009 (excluding the period of four years from the date of booking i.e. 11.2.2005) till the delivery of the plot in question to the complainant.

          The complainant in her prayer clause has claimed a sum of Rs.3 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental agony etc., which in our view, is on a very higher side.  But in our view, since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, definitely the complainant is entitled to get some sort of compensation from the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment, mental agony and further to pay a sum of Rs.five thousand under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondent is further directed to allot the plot bearing no. A-A11/22 measuring 350 Sq. yards in TDI City, Sonepat to the complainant.  The respondent is also directed to accept the balance payment, if any, from the complainant without any interest, penalty or surcharge etc.  However, it is further directed that if for the respondent it is not possible to allot the plot bearing no.A-A11/22 measuring 350 Sq. yards in TDI City, Sonepat to the complainant, in that event, the respondent shall allot the alternate plot of the same size, on the same rate, in the same block or other block at the better preferential location in TDI City, Sonepat to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It is also directed to the respondent to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order.

         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)           (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 03.05.2016