Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/68/2021

Manisha Beri - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s TDI Infratech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill adv

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	68/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	02.02.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	10.11.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Manisha Beri w/o Sh.Prashant Johar r/o H.No.1176, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh-160015.

             …..Complainant

Versus

M/s TDI Infratech Ltd., (formerly known as Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd.) having its office at SCO 144-145, NH-21, Sector 117, Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab through its Managing Director Sh.Ravinder Kumar Taneja and Director Sh.Ved Prakash.

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

              MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Present   :-

                Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Counsel for the   complainant

                  Sh.Puneet Tuli, Counsel for the OP

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 pleading that she applied for a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in the project of the OP known as TDI City situated at Sector 110-111, SAS Nagar, Mohali by paying Rs.7,96,878/- on 23.09.2008 against receipt (Annexure C-1) and she was allotted plot No.735 vide allotment letter dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure C-2) for a total basic sale price of Rs.29,74,957.50P. Vide letter dated 20.08.2010(Annexure C-3), the plot No.735 was changed to plot No.902. The complainant in all deposited a sum of Rs.34,32,681/- vide different receipts C-4 (colly) and Annexure C-5 as detailed in para 5 of the complaint. A Buyer’s Agreement was also signed from the complainant but the copy thereof was not supplied despite her requests/visits.  Since there was no development at the site of the OP, therefore, the complainant stopped paying the payment. However, the OP arbitrarily cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure C-6)  and the complainant vide letter (Annexure C-7) requested for restoration of the plot. The allotment of the complainant was alleged to be revived as she had paid all the due payments as demanded by the OP.  However, the possession of the plot was not delivered.  Besides this, the deadline given by the PUDA to complete the said project in all aspects is already over by 30.06.2015. There were lack of amenities at the site.  It has been averred that the OP has not offered the complete and legal possession of the plot till date and the purpose of purchasing the plot has frustrated as the complainant had purchased an alternative plot. Hence, this complaint seeking directions to the OP to refund the deposited amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon the OP, the OP appeared before this Commission and filed their written version taking preliminary objections inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complaint is based on wrong facts and concealment of true facts and the complainant is not a consumer and, as such, she does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in the C.P. Act.  The Government of Punjab, with a view to attract new investments in the State of Punjab, formulated Industrial Policy, 2003. In order to set up a mega housing project in villages Bhagomajra,  Village Ballo Majra and Daun Tehsil Kharar with huge investment, the Company submitted its proposal to Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab; which was accepted and Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the Company on 31.8.2006 (Annexure R-2).  Subsequently, an agreement was signed between the Company and the Government of Punjab dated 21.9.2006(Annexure R-3), for implementation of said mega housing project. Resultantly, the Government of Punjab, vide its Notification under Section 44 of the PAPRA exempted the Mega Housing Project of the Company from application of provisions of PAPRA.  In pursuance of Registration-cum-Application form(Annexure R-5) for allotment of a residential plot of 250 sq.yds, the complainant was allotted plot No. 735 measuring 250 sq.yds at TDI City Mohali, Sector 110-111, Landran- Banur Road vide allotment letter dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure R-6). As per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the plot No.735 of the complainant was changed to plot No.902 vide letter dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure R-7). Subsequently several reminders/demand letter (Annexures R-8 to R-14) were sent to the complainant, even telephonic calls were made to come forth to clear the outstanding dues. Finally, the cancellation of the plot was sent on 07.05.2011 (Annexure R-15). However, keeping the harmonious relations with the complainant, the OP Company had revoked the cancellation on request made by the complainant.   It has further been stated that an offer of possession was sent on 28.08.2012 along with detailed statement of accounts and was requested to come and take the possession of the plot in question (Annexure R-18). Thereafter, the OP again sent demand letters and reminders (Annexures R-19 to R-23) to the complainant to clear the outstanding dues.  Finally, vide letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure R-24), the plot of the complainant was cancelled. It has further been stated that the complainant is herself a defaulter and the company had issued two cancellations due to non-payment of the dues due towards the said plot is not entitled to any relief. As per the notification of 02.09.2014, a partial completion certificate was issued to the company on 25.06.2015 (Annexure R-26). Copy of the Partial completion certificate is annexed herewith as Annexure R-26. It has been admitted that the completion time to complete the project was granted till 30.06.2015. It has further been stated that for rest of the project to complete the said project an extension till 30.06.2019 and till 31.12.2022 was granted by the competent authorities. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
3.     The complainant filed replication to the written reply of the OP controverting their stand and reiterating her own.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
6.     The perusal of the documentary evidence on record and the submissions of the parties reveal that the complainant was initially allotted plot No.735, which was subsequently changed to plot No.902. The price of the plot in question was Rs.31,87,500/- excluding the PLC, EDC and other charges as per the   advance registration form (Annexure R-5).   It is an admitted fact that the complainant had deposited Rs.34,32,681/- towards the plot in question. The OP alleged to have offered the possession of plot in question to the complainant vide letter of offer dated 28.08.2012(Annexure R-18) without obtaining the occupation/completion certificate and as such the same cannot be deemed to be a valid offer of possession. Besides this, the OP has not supplied the copy of the Buyer’s Agreement to the complainant allegedly executed between the parties despite her repeated requests nor the OP has placed on record a copy thereof. However, to the utter dismay of the complainant, instead of offering the possession of the plot, they have arbitrarily cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 14.12.2020 despite the fact that the complainant had deposited entire price of the plot in question. The plot of the complainant was cancelled by the OP vide its letter dated 14.12.2020 but there is nothing on record that proves that the OP has refunded the deposited amounts to the complainant after the cancellation of the plot. Thus, non-refund of the deposited amounts to the complainant after cancellation of the plot by the OP amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP.  The OP cannot take advantage of both the benefits i.e. retaining of the plot as well as the amounts deposited by the complainant. The Consumer Law demands that either the OP should allot the plot to the complainant or to refund the deposited amounts with interest to the complainant.
7.     The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed as under:-

            “The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

8.     Further, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018, held that non delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date is a material violation on the part of the builder and in those cases, allottees are well within their rights to seek refund of the amount paid. The above view is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442.
9.     The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed as under:- 

    “It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/ apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers. If the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such delay, and the possession of the apartment is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder would be liable to bear the escalation cost and not the buyer/consumer”.

10.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the OP has not refunded the deposited amounts to the complainant despite cancellation of the plot, which amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP. Hence, the OP is liable to refund the deposited amounts to the complainant along with the interest.
11.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OP.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to refund the deposited amounts of Rs.34,32,681/- to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the respective dates of its deposits till the date of its actual payment to the complainant.
12.      The above said order shall be complied with by the OP jointly and severally within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly
14.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission.

10.11.2023                                                 

Sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER