Delhi

New Delhi

CC/491/2011

Arvind Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

26 Oct 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/491/11                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Arvind  Malik,

S/o Sh. D.P Malik,

R/o G-56, Naraina Vihar,

New Delhi-28

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

9, K.G Marg, New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complainant booked a flat in TDI City Kndli, and he was allotted a 3 BHK apartment no.1004, Tower D: 10^th Floor measuring 1625 sq. ft. The payment plan was construction linked. He paid booking amount of Rs.4 lakhs in 2006. Thereafter he started receiving demands, which did not mention the stage of construction and were even before the due time as per EMI plan. He still went on paying the demanded sum, and in this way paid Rs.15,31,871/- which was more than half of the price. Though, the possession was promised in 3 years, the Complainant found no construction at all, though demands were made. The OP told him to ignore the demands and wait as there was recession in market. He made last payment on 29.06.10. However, on 22.10.10, he received a letter from OP stating that all balance payment be made in 30 days, otherwise the booking will stand cancelled automatically. It did not indicate any construction status. The complainant despite this sent a cheque of Rs.9,25,000/- dated 20.11.10 towards balance payment, but the cheque was not accepted for unknown reason. Thus, complainant has filed this complainant.

The OP in its reply has harped on defaults in regular payments by complainant leading to cancellation. It is a reply which is standardized one and not related to factual position in this case. In this case, we find that complainant was so eager to get the flat, that he deposited the amount ahead of due dates and without caring the demand not mentioning construction status. The sudden cancellation of booking after getting more than 50% and remaining balance, being refused, when paid, are absolutely unfair trade practice in order to sell the booking to someone else at higher rates or for other extraneous reason. The reply does not indicate present status of project at D tower.

We have considered the rival case and documents, and find no substance or truth in the reply of OP. The OP has acted in cruel manner with a bonafide honest willing purchaser, with ready money. Such a contract cannot but is to be enforced. Holding OP guilty of deficiency in services, and unfair trade practices, amounting to cheating, we direct OP to return the whole amount of Rs.15,38,871/- with interest @ 18% from date of deposits, or in the alternate be given possession of a similar flat, acceptable to complainant at same rate without interest in other tower. We also award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

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 26.10.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER