Haryana

StateCommission

A/1553/2017

SANJAY JAITLY AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

DIWAN S. ADLAKHA

04 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1553 of 2017

Date of Institution:      15.12.2017

Date of Decision :       04.10.2018

 

1.      Sanjay Jaitly son of Dev Raj Sharma

2.      Vandna Jaitly wife of Sanjay Jaitly

 

          Both resident of TP-117, Mayura Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110088 at present J-554, 9^th Floor, Max Heights, Sector 62, Kundli, District Sonepat.

                                      Appellants-Complainants

Versus

 

1.      M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited, UG Flat, Vandna Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.

2.      Branch Manager, TDI Infrastructure Limited, TDI City, Kundli, District Sonepat.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

                                               

Argued by:          Shri Diwan Singh Adlakha, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Bhupender Singh, Advocate for respondents.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainants’ appeal is directed against the order dated October 31^st, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby respondents were directed to refund Rs.14,20,103/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

2.      Sanjay Jaitly and his wife Vandna Jaitly-complainants booked a flat with the respondents.  They paid Rs.14,20,103/- to the respondents. The respondents failed to handover the possession of the flat to the complainants. They requested the respondents to refund the deposited amount but they did not pay any heed.

3.      The only plea raised by learned counsel for the complainants is that the amount deposited by the complainants be refunded from the date of its respective deposits and not from the date of filing of complaint.

4.      Submission being convincing, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the respondents shall refund the deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till its realization. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

 

Announced 04.10.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK