Delhi

New Delhi

CC/905/2012

Babita Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (

DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/905/12                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Ms. Babita Chopra,

C/o Sh. Raj Kalra,

GC-15, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-27

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

G-7, GF, Connaught Circus,

Opp. Madras Hotel Block,

 New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complainant a widow booked in 2005 a flat in TDI-Kundli in future projects by depositing Rs.3 lakhs, vide customer ID 17502, vide copy of receipt filed with this complaint. Likewise mother of complainant booked a flat in joint name of her & her son and paid Rs.3 lakhs vide customer ID FFL 14446. The construction was to be done in 2 years time. However, no construction came up till 200, and on approaching OP, they further demanded Rs.25,000/- to consolidate both the bookings in one, to get a bigger flat. Believing the OP, and unsuspecting, Rs.6,25,000/- was deposited till 2012, when this complaint was filed.

The OP in its reply does not dispute facts and has stated that various demand letters were issued and on not making payments, the booking was cancelled, and it offered 50% refund.

We have considered the rival submissions and find that no allotment ever was made after collecting Rs.6,25,000/- in the name of having a consolidated booking and no reminders have been pleaded with dates of dispatch, or even copies of such demand letters. It has only placed cancellation of registration letter, with offer to pay only Rs.1,50,000/- of original booking of Rs.3 lakh of complainant, even though the demand of extra Rs.25,000/- is also against her booking. The complainant has placed receipt of Rs.6,25,000/- deposited against her booking.

After considering the rival case, we find that OP has taken the complainant for a ride, by demanding more money, while there was no construction, by showing dream of bigger flat, and then cancelling the booking and offering only half. The original promise having failed, registration being cancelled by OP, on false grounds, we hold OP guilty of deficiency and unfair trade practice and direct OP to return Rs.6,25,000/- with 9% interest from respective date of deposits till payment. We award litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for deficiency.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 24.11.2015.

 

 

                     (C.K.CHATURVEDI)    

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER