Haryana

StateCommission

A/526/2018

GULSHAN BATLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

AMAN BANSAL

25 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.526 of 2018

 

Date of Institution:25.04.2018

Date of final hearing:31.05.2024

Date of pronouncement:25.06.2024

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Gulshan Batla, R/o H.No. 1163, Sector-14 Sonepat, Haryana.

…Appellant.

 

Through counsel Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate

 

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd., through its Director/Chairman having registered office at 9-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2.     M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd. through its authorized person/signatory, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-01.

3.      TDI City, Kundli (Sonepat) through its Manager.

….Respondents.

 

Through counsel Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Aman Bansal, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Munish Goyal, counsel for respondents.

 

 

First Appeal No.686 of 2018

 

Date of institution: 24.05.2018

Date of final hearing:31.05.2024

Date of pronouncement:25.06.2024

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd., through its Director/Chairman having registered office at 9-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

2.     M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd. through its authorized person/signatory, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-01.

3.     TDI City, Kundli (Sonepat) through its Manager.

All through their authorized representative Shri Tejinder Rathee son of Shri D.P. Rathee, R/o House No.3280, Sector-15, Sonepat.

…..Appellants.

Through counsel Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate

 

 

Versus

Gulshan Batla, R/o H.No. 1163, Sector-14 Sonepat, Haryana.

….Respondent.

 

Through counsel Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Munish Gupta, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Aman Bansal, counsel for respondent.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

          Delay of 27 days in filing of First Appeal No.686 of 2018 is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.                Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing F.A No.526 of 2018 and F.A. No.686 of 2018 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.03.2018, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (now learned ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Gulshan Batla) was allowed and the opposite parties (‘OPs’) were directed as under:-

“…Accordingly, it is held that when the respondents are unable to do the development work at the site, the complainant cannot be left in the hands of the respondents for indefinite period and the ends of justice would be fully met if directions for refund of the amount is given to the respondents. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the deposited amount of Rs.19,37,500/- (Rs. Nineteen lacs thirty seven thousand five hundred) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.”

 

3.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant booked a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards with the OPs in Tuscon City at TDI Kundli in the year 2011 and has paid total amount of Rs.19,37,500/- from time to time to the OPs. It was alleged that the OPs failed to give possession of the plot to the complainant. It was further alleged that on 20.06.2016, OP No.1 issued a letter to the complainant that the project could not be completed due to the reasons beyond their control and intimated the complainant to exercise alternate options. After receipt of this letter, the complainant wrote a letter to the OPs on 30.06.2016 that he was not interested in exercising the other option as the respondents have already failed to obtain the necessary sanction from the government and the land was still under dispute and thus, the complainant requested the OPs to refund his total deposited amount alongwith interest, but of no use. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed its written version and submitted therein that the temporary allotment of plot No.A1-288 was made to the complainant which was subject to clearance of outstanding dues as per booking form and payment plan. It was submitted that the development work at the site could not be carried out due to hindrance caused by some local miscreants and litigation pending between the OPs and the said miscreants of village Nangal Kalan, Distt. Sonepat. The OPs also got lodged the FIR and in these circumstances, the OPs were unable to do the development work. It was further submitted that the complainant has only deposited the booking amount and first installment with the OPs.  Other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and finally it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 2^nd supra.

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, OPs (M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd. & Ors.) have preferred First Appeal No.686 of 2018  for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 and complainant (Gulshan Batla) has preferred the First Appeal No.526 of 2018 for modification/enhancement of award passed by the learned District Commission vide its impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by learned District Commission, Sonepat.

7.                Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for appellant in First Appeal No.526 of 2018 and respondent in First Appeal No.686 of 2018 as well as by Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate learned counsel for appellants in First Appeal No.686 of 2018 and respondents in First Appeal No.526 of 2018.  With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant (Gulshan Batla) booked a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards with the OPs (M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd.) in Tuscon City at TDI Kundli in the year 2011. It is also an admitted fact that he paid an amount of Rs.19,37,500/- in total on different dates to the OPs (M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd.). It is also an admitted fact that OPs failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant and  vide letter dated 20.06.2016 intimated the complainant that the project could not be completed due to the reasons beyond their control and requested to exercise alternate options. Letter, dated 30.06.2016 written by complainant to OPs is also admitted vide which complainant requested the OPs to refund his total deposited amount alongwith interest.

9.                In considered view of this Commission, it is quite baffling to note surprising as to how inspite of the fact that complainant had deposited a huge amount i.e. Rs.19,37,500/-, but possession was not delivered by the OPs and the OPs had also shown their inability to deliver the possession of plot. As such, it is a clear case of deficiency on part of OPs while rendering services to the complainant. It is the normal trend of the developers that a developer would collect their hard earned money from the individuals and would invest these funds in other projects and as a result thereof the project for which the home-buyers have deposited their hard earned money is not completed. Thus, the complainant is well within his legal rights to receive refund of the amount of Rs.19,37,500/-  (Rs. Ninteen lacs thirty seven thousand five hundred only) which he had already deposited with the OPs.

10.              As far as the question of higher rate of interest i.e. 18% claimed by complainant is concerned, in this regard it is pertinent to mention here that it may be relevant to keep the following factors into consideration. Keeping in view the recent periodic revision of repo rate by Monetary Policy Committee of Reserve Bank of India and consequent revision of Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) by the Nationalized Banks, there has been revision of lending rate by the Nationalized banks. Accordingly, it would in considered view of this Commission, be just fair and reasonable to award 9% as rate of interest to the complainant.

11.              Thus, learned District Commission rightly observed that the appellants-OPs (M/s TDI Infrastructure(P) Ltd.) were deficient in service and rightly issued the directions to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 9% p.a., as mentioned above. Impugned order dated 27.03.2018, passed by learned District Commission, Sonepat is well reasoned, based on facts, as per law and there is no need to interfere with it.  Hence, the First Appeal No.526 of 2018 filed by the appellant-complainant (Gulshan Batla) for enhancement of the award as well as First Appeal No.686 of 2018 filed by appellants-OPs(M/s TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd.) for setting aside the impugned order, both stand dismissed while upholding the order passed by the learned District Commission.

12.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the First Appeal No.686 of 2018 be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt, due verification, as per rules and after expiry the period for filing of appeal/revision, if any.

13.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.526 of 2018 and its certified copies be attached with appeal No.686 of 2018.

14.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

15.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

16.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 25^th June, 2024                                                S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III