Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/105/2023

ABHINAV SOOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SAVINDER SINGH GILL

29 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/105/2023
Date of Institution	:	01/03/2023
Date of Decision	:	29/5/2024

 

Abhinav Sood S/0 Sh. P.D Sood, R/o H. No. 721. Sector-43 A. Chandigarh.

....Complainant

 

Versus

 

1 M/s TDI Intratech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers and infrastructure Limited) having its office at SCO 144-145, NH-21, Sector-117. Chandigarh-Kharar Road. Mohalli. Punjab-140301, through its Managing Director Sh. Ravinder Kumar Taneja and Director Sh. Ved Prakash,

2 Ravinder Kumar Taneja. Managing Director of M/s TDI Intratech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited) having its office of SCO 144-145, NH-21, Sector-117. Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Mohall, Punjab-140301.

3 Ved Prakash, Director of M/s TDI Infratech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers and infrastructure Limited) having its office at SCO 144-145, NH-21, Sector-117. Chandigarh Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab-140301.

4. Renu Taneja, Director of M/s TDI Infratech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited) having its office at SCO 144-145, NH-21, Sector-117. Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Mohali. Punjab-140301.

 

5. Rohit Gogia Director of M/s TDI Infratech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited) having its office at SCO 144-145. NH-21. Sector-117 Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab-140301.

 

6 Directorate of Town and Country Planning, having office at PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62. S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 160062 through Chief Town

....Opposite parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for OP No. 1 to 5.
	:	Complaint against OP No.6 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.6.2023.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased a residential plot having No.562 measuring 350 sq. yds. from the original allottee in the project of the OPs No.1 to 5.  The total cost of the plot was Rs.28,52,500/- out of which the complainant has already paid Rs.27,70,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of possession. Thereafter the opposite parties on 07.12.2015 sent a letter to the complainant and informed the complainant that Upto 10% of the project land defined as "Critical Gap Area" was to be acquired by the government as per its policy and such acquisition proceedings by the government could not be completed consequently, the process of making offer of possession of a few plots has remained pending including the plot of the complainant. The said letter was replied by the complainant vide letter dated 10.12.2015 and informed the opposite parties that the complainant decided to retain the plot allotted to him. Despite knowing the fact that the complainant is seeking possession of the said plot, opposite parties on 13.04.2017 again sent a letter to the complainant informing that the opposite parties have decided to refund the amount paid by the complainant and again sent a letter dated 31.03.2021 to the complainant and requested the complainant to inform the opposite parties about the choice of either claim refund or possession of an alternative plot. The complainant replied the letter issued by the opposite parties through e-mail dated 05.04.2021 and informed the opposite parties that complainant is ready to take alternative plot only if the plot offered is of similar location and in same pocket/sector. But the opposite parties instead of offering alternative plot to the complainant, have submitted a revised layout plan drawing before Directorate of Town and Country Planning, GMADA, and proposed that few plots have been carved in the newly added area including few more changes as shown in the revised layout plan  and the said revised layout plan was discussed by approval committee on 02.09.2022 and it was decided before approving the revised layout plan that a public notice be issued to all allottees of the project inviting objections. The complainant filed objections and requested the PUDA not to sanction the revised layout plan unless the dispute between the complainant and opposite parties is resolved. Moreover, the acquisition proceedings were withdrawn by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Housing-1 Branch), and the critical gap was accepted whereas the complainant who had a plot in the critical gap has not been offered possession of the plot till date which is a clear cut case of deficiency in service. It is alleged  that legal possession of the said plot has never been offered by the opposite parties. The OPs No. 1 to 5  till date does not have completion certificate and in fact at the time of allotment of plot the complainant was shown a different lay-out plan which has further been revised and the complainant has rather been kept in dark regarding the same.  Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 to 5 in their reply stated after the approval of the layout plan of 2008, the complainant was allotted a residential plot no.562 measuring 350 Sq yds, in "TDI City" at Mohali on 13.11.2009. The allotment was as per the tentative Layout Plans, which was subject to variation, addition, alteration, modification therein on instructions of Regulatory Authority including the Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Punjab. It was specifically mentioned in the allotment letter that such alteration or variation may include change in position, number, block, dimensions or even area of the plot. In order to acquire the critical gap area to the extent of 10% of project land, the requisition to that effect was sent by the company to the government of Punjab. However, the acquisition proceeding by the Government could not be completed as earlier the issuance of notification under the Land Acquisition Act remained pending earlier, and thereafter, when so issued, the notifications were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Precisely, on requisition by the company for acquisition of part of land, the Government of Punjab acting upon the said requisition, issued notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said notifications have become the subject matter of litigation before the Hon'ble High Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 15615 of 2009. It is averred that plot no 562 is part of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 13.02.2009 which clearly depicts from the layout plan. In these circumstances, the process of making offer of possession of a few plots, including the plot no 562, as allotted to complainant has remained pending. The CWP no 15615 was disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court on 23.08.2018, directing the Govt of Punjab to pass an appropriate order within 4 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Govt of Punjab, Department Of Housing And Urban Development on 03.04.2019 declared the said notifications under section 4 and section 6 as valid. In order to avoid further delay, the OP company decided to allot another plot of the same measurement to the complainant and accordingly issued a public notice dated 29.03.2021 in "Hindustan Times' and 'Dainik Tribune newspapers and the respondent company has sent a letter dated 31.03.2021 conveying such decision regarding fresh allotment of residential plot to the complainant in place of earlier plot. Vide same letter, the complainant was asked his choice either to claim for refund or to take the possession of the alternate product plot but the complainant had not answered. It is averred  that the OP company is still ready to refund the amount so deposited by the complainant with a reasonable rate of interest only as a special case and keeping the harmonious relationship with the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant did not bother to intimate the OP company his choice of refund or of taking possession of an alternate plot within a period of 30 days from the date of public notice. Denying any deficiency on their part all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied being wrong.
3.  Complaint qua OP No.6 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.6.2023 in pursuance of  separate statement made by the counsel for the complainant to this effect.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. Admittedly the complainant was allotted residential plot No.562 measuring 350 Sq. yds.   in the project of the OPs No. 1 to 5.  The total cost of the plot was Rs.28,52,000/-  out of which the complainant  has already paid Rs.24,70,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of taking possession. On 7.12/2015 the OPs sent a letter to the complainant intimating that upto 10%  of the project land defined as “critical gap area” was to be acquired by the government as per its policy  and as such the offer of possession of few plots remained pending including the plot of the complainant.
8. After a gap of 6 years various offers were made by the Ops No.1 to 5 to the complainant time and again and the complainant finally agreed to take even alternative plot  in the same sector  and of similar location.  
9. The main grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that despite of receiving huge amount from the complainant, OPs No. 1 to 5 neither offered possession of the originally allotted plot nor the alternative plot.
10. The  stand taken by the OPs No. 1 to 5 is that as  of now  they don’t have any plot of size of 350 sq.yds.  as desired by the complainant therefore as and when the same is available they will handover possession of the same to the complainant.
11. Aggrieved by the attitude of the OPs No. 1 to 5 the complainant has finally placed on record one affidavit alongwith few documents  Annexure C-11 copy of advertisement  showing that the Ops No. 1 to 5 are selling the plots in the open market presently instead of giving to their allottee/aggrieved consumers including the complainant. It is a matter of record and very well in the knowledge of the OPs that the complainant is willing to take possession of the alternative plot vide email Annexure C-6 dated 5.4.2021 but instead of giving it to the complainant the Ops No.1 to 5 are illegally and arbitrarily selling the same in the open market.
12. The complainant has placed on record zoomed copy of approved layout plan dated 13.1.2023  according to which the following plots of different sizes are lying vacant:-

Plot No.	Size of plot
350	333.33 sq. yds
351	333.33 sq. yds
385	408.33 sq. yds.
386-391	341.66 sq. yds.

 

13.  From the above table it is apparent that plot No. 385 is of bigger size and remaining plots are of lesser size as compared to the originally allotted plot to the complainant.  However, during the oral arguments the complainant alongwith counsel agreed to take possession of even the lesser size plot. Hence, in our view it will serve end of justice if we order to OPs No. 1 to 5 to handover possession of   plot NO.386 measuring 341.66 sq. yds. to the complainant and the complainant shall be liable to pay  remaining payment  out of the total cost of Rs.28,52,000/- .  
14. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.  1 to 5 are directed as under:-

1. to handover possession of plot NO.386 measuring 341.66 sq. yds. to the complainant  and shall receive remaining payment from the complainant out of the total cost of Rs.28,52,000/-  as agreed earlier.  
2. to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i)&(iii) above.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
17.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member