Delhi

New Delhi

EA/264/2013

Ram Chand Shahdadpuri - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 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.EX/63/15                                Dated:

Case no. EX/264/13

Case no.CC/1391/10

   

In the matter of:

Ram Chand Shahdadpuri,

8, Old Mussorie Road,

Rajpur, Dehardun-248009

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

9, K.G Marg, New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

This order decides application of Complainant, dated 23.04.2015, for issuing of warrants of OP, for execution of orders of Forum dated 17.05.13, reproduced below:

“17.05.2013

ORDER

In  the cases  where  there is delay in construction, and there is construction link time plan, as  matter of first principle, OP cannot charge for delay in installment, if it itself delayed his construction.  In the light of above discussion, OP has to issue a fresh demand letter for giving possession to complainant, stating the charges due on its part to be paid as mentioned above, and the balance, if any,  to be paid by complainant.

                OP is directed to place on record first new statement as directed above.  In case, it is not in a position to give payment, and possession it should return the entire payment so far made with interest of 18% as prayed by complainant.           

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

 

Before proceedings further, it is necessary to recapitulate certain facts, so far, to show deliberate attempts of J.D showing intention of it to not to comply with the order of the Forum 17.05.13, which became final and binding as neither J.D nor D.H/Complainant filed any appeal. The order was to be complied in 30 days time after receipt of order.

 Counsel for J.D, on 03.03.14 informed the Forum that statement of account had not been filed on record, nor the offer of possession.

The case was adjourned to 17.05.14, but taken up on 19.05.14, when the request for filing  statement of account was granted, with cost of Rs.5,000/- and case was adjourned to 27.05.14. On this date again non appeared for J.D, and case was adjourned to 08.07.14 with cost of Rs.2,000/- for compliance of order on 27.05.14. Like this OP dragged the matter till 15.04.15, by repeatedly availing indulgence of Court in its favor. Lastly on 15.04.15, the AR of J.D, Mr. Ritesh personally came & detailed settlement and plan of payment & handing over of possession, by giving Rs.1 lakh immediately by D.H and 4 post dated cheques of totaling Rs.6 lakhs, and possession to be given in Sept.15 after clearing & readying the flat. The order of 15.04.15 is reproduced below:

“Case taken up today on request of both the parties. The matter is discussed in presence of Mr. Ritesh of TDI. As a result of discussion, OP agrees to charge Rs.1 lakh for car in place of Rs.1.75 lakh in the statement dated 20.10.13. The net payable amount is reached at 6 lakhs 5 thousand excluding stamp charges to be payable at the time of registration.

 

It is decided that:

a)Complainant will deposit Rs.1 lakh with TDI by bank transfer within one week from today.

b)The possession complete in all respect will be in Sept.15 after removing all shotcomings.

c)Another installments of Rs.1 lakh will be paid by 1^st August 15.

d)The balance 4 lakh will be paid by him is as under PD cheque of following amounts:

1)Rs.1 lakh dated 17/04

2)Rs.1.5 lakh dated 31/05

3)Rs.1.5 lakh dated 15/09

4)Rs.2 lakh 31/12

Total: Rs.6 lakhs                      

 

To report compliance on 02.02.16

               

It is alleged by complainant in his application dated 23.04.15 under discussion that, J.D did not accept the post dated cheques when approached & backed out again and Counsel for J.D moved application stating that OP did some calculation mistake etc.

We have recapitulated the above facts, only to show how liberty given by Court has been abused, and J.D is clearly insensitive to harassed consumer for last 9 years, when he is in last phase of his old age. The Complainant, about 80 years of age, and has been repeatedly coming from Dehradun and suffering from numerous medical problems and exhausted his patience, and sought refund of the deposited amount with interest in terms of original order of 17.05.13, as JD/OP had not complied the order. It may be mentioned that original order had directed J.D to return the deposited amount with interest of 18% in case it was not able to given statement of account of payments received and due after adjustments as mentioned in the order of 17.05.13, along with offer of possession.

        Thus, the J.D forfeited its option of giving of ‘offer of possession and D.H became entitled to refund of money as binding orders.

        Nevertheless, the Court gave long rope to J.D, to settle the matter and advocates of J.D on 27.08.14, agreed to take instructions to give possession to D.H after payment of Rs.5,41,000/-. On 08.09.14 it was directed to send statement of account by post to D.H.

In our considered view, the OP does not deserve this peaceful route of settlement out of final & binding order to return the deposited amount as per order with interest of 18% till payment as per order of 17.05.13. The interest of 18% was granted in view of the fact that Forum did not separately award any compensation for deficiency, harassment, delay charges & litigation expenses.

 We respect consumer sovereignty in such matters and uphold the option of complainant to seek refund of amount deposited with interest, as directed in order of 17.05.13, as OP has failed to carry out other option and has forfeited that option by its own conduct, insensitivity and in competency of A.R and his legal advisors (not advocates).

We in the first instance under section 25 of the CP Act, order as under:

1. Attachment of flat against customer ID.KFL-15361, allotted to complainant, by directing District Collector, Sonepat, in charge of Kundli area to attach it and direct him not to release the attachment till directed otherwise by this Court.
2. We direct Commissioner, Delhi Police to execute NBWs against the Managing Director of TDI Infrastructure, Kundli, and produce him before the Forum, in pursuance of warrants issued today, unless he arranges to give the police for depositing in Court a DD of amount deposited against customer ID.KFL-15361 in favor of complainant/D.H with interest of 18% p.a. from date of complaint in 2010 till date of payment.
3. Commissioner, Delhi Police (New Delhi) to get this order complied through DCP/SHO Connaught Place, at the earliest, by serving the order on Managing Director, TDI.

The order shall be complied immediately; 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 ……………….

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER