Delhi

StateCommission

CC/225/2015

DR. KULVINDER SINGH BAHL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :06.09.2019

Date of Decision : 17.09.2019

COMPLAINT NO 225/2015

In the matter of:

 

1.         Dr. Kulvinder Singh Bahl

            R/o C-8, Sarita Vihar,

            New Delhi-110076

 

                                                            ………Complainant

Versus

           

1.         M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited

            Regd. Office at 0, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

            New Delhi-110001.

 

            Also at:

            Vandana Building,

            Upper Ground floor, 11, Tolstoy Marg,

            Cannaught Place, new Delhi-110001.                                 ……..Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

 

 

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The case of the complainants is that OP offered sale for residential floor in scheme ‘Expania Floors’ on main NH-1, Kamaspur, Sonipat, Haryana. The OP promised to hand over possession within 30 months. He applied for allotment vide application dated 10.09.2011 and was allotted 1499 sq. ft. against booking no. BOKKEF/00025/11-12 on 09.12.2011. Floor Buyer’s Agreement was entered into 21.03.2012. He opted for construction payment plan. He had paid Rs. 29,39,445/- till the filing of the complaint. He has already paid 80 per cent and remaining 20 per cent was required to be paid at the time of possession. The OP neither addressed any letter nor issued any demand notice qua remaining 20 per cent. The period promised expired in September, 2014. He has not been hand over possession.
2. As per clause 21 of the agreement the complainant is entitled to monthly compensation/damages/penalty quantified at Rs. 5 per sq. ft. of the total super area.
3. The OP has failed to pay the same. Legal notice dated 09.12.2015 was sent. Hence this complaint for directing the OP to pay Rs. 29,39,445/- with interest @ 18 p.a., compensation quantified @ 5 sq. ft. of total super area with effect from 21.09.2014, Rs. 5 lacs as damages due to deficiency in service towards mental and financial agony, Rs. 5000/- towards cost of notice and litigation.  
4. The OP was served for 02.12.2015 and put in appearance through his counsel Sh. Harsh Vardhan Rathore. Copy of the complaint was supplied and he was directed to file written statement. OP failed to file written statement and its right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 22.04.2016. the complainant challenged the said order before National Commission by FA-1539/2016 which has been dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2018.
5. In his evidence the complainant has filed is own affidavit reproducing the contents of the complaint. He proved floor buyer agreement as Ex, CW-1/1, receipt as Ex.CW-1/2. He has paid Rs. 3,19,048/- on 21.10.2015 after filing of the present complaint. The total sum paid by him comes to Rs. 32,58,497/-. He proved copy of notice Ex.CW-1/3 postal receipt, Ex.CW-1/4, proof of delivery of legal notice as Ex. CW-1/5.
6. The complainant has filed written arguments in support of his case. OP has also filed written arguments which can not be looked into except for legal defence.
7. The OP has taken a plea that consumer does not include a person who obtain goods for re-sale. He has also taken an objection that prospective buyer cannot consumer as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual fund Vs. Kartick Das Manu/SC/0553/ 1194 (4) SCC 225. It has further pleaded that complicated questions are evolved which can not be decided in summary jurisdiction.
8. It had also relied upon decision in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711 to show that a allottee does not pay instalment he cannot expect completion of construction and is not entitled to interest or compensation.
9. The present case is of booking of plot only and no self financing for construction was involved.
10. There is no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted case of the complainant. The complainant is allowed OP is directed to refund Rs. 32,58,495/- with compensation at agreed rate of Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month w.e.f the committed date of possession i.e. 21.09.2014 till the date of payment.
11. This is being done so as per order of National Commission in CC-2095/16 titled as  Yash Manoj Hande Vs. Parsvnath Developers decided on 14.02.2019.
12. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs.
13. File be consigned to record room.

 

         (O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)