Delhi

New Delhi

CC/258/2014

Lakshay Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure - 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/258/14                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Lakshay Bajaj,

S/o Sh. Narender Kumar Bajaj,

R/o F-19/47, Sector-8,

Rohini, Delhi-85

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

1. M/s. Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as M/s. IntimePromoters Pvt. Ltd.,) Through its M.D  Mr Ravinder Kumar Taneja,

And Chairman/Director Mr. Devki Nandan Taneja, Having its registered office at:

9, K.G Marg, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Having its Corporate Office at:

         Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,

         Gole Market, New Delhi-110001

 

3. Also having its office at:

        UG Floor, Vandana Building,

        11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place,

         New Delhi-110001

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

We have heard the parties on the maintainability of petition/complaint as OP has raised issue about the complainant being not a consumer. It is pointed out by the OP that complainant in its Para2 of the complaint has stated that he was in service and that he invested for booking for a shop in a mall “Rodeo Drive” of TDI at Kundli, so that he can have some extra income. OP has placed reliance on certain decision of National Commission in support of its view.

We have considered the material on record. The question is whether a person in service cannot enhance his income by purchasing a shop and letting it out to generate more income for his livelihood, if he can afford so. In our view there is no such legal impediment nor will this fact take him away from the definition of ‘Consumer’, since he has availed service of housing provided by OP. The National Commission in the case of Usha Agarwal Vs. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad case (1994) CPJ3\(NC) in Para6 of the judgment has by majority decision held that ‘housing construction’ will include commercial complex also.

The Complaint is held as ‘Consumer’. The complainant has placed on record a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in a PIL, the Court questioned the action of Govt. to acquire land for public purpose and thereafter allotting it to ‘private builders’ and cancelled it a scam. PIL questioning allotment of land by Govt. to held that TDI built the structure against ‘land use’ provision of Pvt. Builders. This has resulted in OP to abandon further construction and contract can be taken ‘frustrated’ u/s 56 of Contract Act and thus void. The OP cannot retain money and is under obligation to return Rs.16,50,182/- deposited in 2006, for a project promised in 2009. Now when 2016 is approaching things stand still at same stage.

The OP has not been able to show release of land in its favor for private housing purpose, as it was acquired for public purpose. The OP should have elaborated on this aspect.

On consideration of all material on record, we find a clear case of deficiency in service towards complaint.  We hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct OP to pay/refund the amount of Rs16,50,182/- along with interest @ 9% from date of deposit till payment.

 

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 ……………….

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER