Haryana

Sonipat

CC/386/2015

Pawan Kumar S/o M.C. Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Taneja Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Garg

27 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.386 of 2015

                             Instituted on:14.10.2015

                             Date of order:27.05.2016

 

Pawan Kumar Pal son of MC Pal, r/o H.No.291, Sector 14, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., through its Directors site office situated at Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

2.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., through its Directors, 9 Kasturba Gandhi marg, New Delhi-110001.

3.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., through its Directors, TDI House, G-7, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

4.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., through its Directors, UGF, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Sanjeev Batra, 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 the agent of the respondents has approached the complainant and by making false promise induced him to invest the amount in the project which was going to be completed very soon i.e. within a period of one year.   The complainant in the month of 3/11, relying upon the assurance of the respondents made by their agent, has paid an amount of R.3 lcs to the respondents towards the booking of a three BHK residential flat (1390 sq. feet).  The complainant from time to time has deposited total huge amount of Rs.13,50,230/- with the respondents and the respondents have informed the complainant that they have allotted a flat no.0504 in Tower No.16 in their project of Tuscan City situated in Kundli, distt. Sonepat vide allotment letter dated 12.6.2012.  The complainant, however, came to know from some sources that till date even the construction of tower no.16 has not been started by the respondents despite passing a long period.  The complainant has requested the respondents to allot the flat, but they refused to give the same to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that at the time of booking, the complainant agreed to make the payment of installments and other dues as per schedule of payment.   The demand raised by the respondent is as per schedule of payment. The complainant was allotted flat no.T-16/0504. There is no delay on the part of the respondents in allotting the flat to the complainant.  It is also submitted that the construction of tower no.16 could not be commenced due to some unavoidable circumstances.  The complainant was accordingly informed and was offered for alternative flat in the same project, but the complainant did not give his consent for the scheme.  The complainant is not entitled for refund of amount deposited by the complainant because the respondents are still ready and willing to allot the alternative flat in the same project to the complainant 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 respondents has submitted that at the time of booking, the complainant agreed to make the payment of installments and other dues as per schedule of payment.   The demand raised by the respondent is as per schedule of payment. The complainant was allotted flat no.T-16/0504. There is no delay on the part of the respondents in allotting the flat to the complainant.  It is also submitted that the construction of tower no.16 could not be commenced due to some unavoidable circumstances.  The complainant was accordingly informed and was offered for alternative flat in the same project, but the complainant did not give his consent for the scheme.  The complainant is not entitled for refund of amount deposited by the complainant because the respondents are still ready and willing to allot the alternative flat in the same project to the complainant.

         In our view, there is admission on the part of the respondents that the construction of tower no.16 could not be commenced due to some unavoidable circumstances.  Self admission is the best evidence and nothing is required to rebut the same.

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of his amount  and whether the complainant is entitled for the interest and if so, as to from what period?

         We have perused the document Annexure R-2 Tuscan Heights Buyer’s Agreement and it has been mentioned in Clause 7 of the said agreement, which is reproduced below:-

         “Further if due to change in the layout plan of the Colony or on account of any other alterations, the Apartment gets dislocated/omitted, then it shall be open for the purchaser to opt for a substituted apartment as may be offered by the company.  In case the purchaser is not willing to opt for any substituted allocation of apartment or in case the apartment is omitted or the company is unable to hand over the same, the company will be liable for refund only the amount received from the purchaser towards the TSC for the apartment alongwith a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum which shall be calculated from the respective daters when the company has actually received the money in its account. No further compensation of any sort shall be payable by the company.

 

         In our view, it is an admitted fact in the affidavit that the construction of tower-16 could not be commenced due to some unavoidable circumstances. Further more, if the above said clause of the agreement is taken into consideration, then also, the complainant is entitled for get refund of his amount alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum.  Accordingly, taking into consideration the above said clause and admission of the respondents, we are of the view that the complainant is definitely entitled to get the refund of his deposited amount from the date of its deposit. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.13,50,230/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization.

 

         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:27.05.2016