Haryana

StateCommission

A/80/2015

TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARVESH JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :          80 of 2015

Date of Institution:        21.01.2015

Date of Decision :         09.12.2015

 

1.     M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Chairman/Managing Director.  

 

2.     TDI Branch Office at Kundli, District Sonipat through its Project Manager.

3.     M/s Intime Promoters Private Limited, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001 through its Manager.

         All through their Authorized signatory Mr. Tejinder Rathee son of Shri D.P. Rathee, Resident of H.No.3280, Sector 15, Sonipat.

                                     Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Parvesh Jain s/o Sh. Trilok Chand Jain, Resident of H.No.A-I/571, Block A, Pocket I, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi.  

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate proxy for Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent-complainant.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of opposite parties is directed against the order dated 8^th December, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in complaint No.195 of 2013.

2.      Parvesh Jain-complainant/respondent booked a plot for shop with Taneja Developers and Infrastructure (TDI) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’) in their upcoming project TDI Mall by submitting advance registration form Exhibit C-2. He paid Rs.14,50,000/- on December 22^nd, 2006 to the builder vide receipt (Exhibit C-1). Instead of allotting plot, the builder issued letter dated 27^th September, 2008 (Exhibit C-3) stating that the booking thereof had been cancelled and the amount deposited stood forfeited. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed. 

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply taking plea that since the complainant did not pay the balance price of the plot, therefore the booking was cancelled.  Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“…we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.14.50,000/- (Rs.fourteen lacs fifty thousands) to the complainant within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of nine percent from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.fifteen thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses”.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has urged that since the booking was cancelled due to default on the part of the complainant for not paying the balance price of the plot, therefore, the deposited amount was rightly forfeited and they are not liable to refund the deposited amount.

6.      The argument raised is not tenable. To decide the case, Clause (c) of the Advance Registration Form (Exhibit C-2) is relevant which reads as under:-

“c)     In case the company is not in a position to make offer of allotment for a Commercial Shop/Showroom within a period of 12 months from the date of my/our application, we shall have the right to withdraw the money and ask for refund by giving 30 days notice along with interest calculated @ 10% p.a. from the date of payment of registration deposit.”

7.      It is not in dispute that the complainant had booked the plot for shop on December 22^nd, 2006 by paying Rs.14,50,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-1 by submitting Advance Registration Form Exhibit C-2. As per Clause (c) the allotment of the plot was to be made within a period of 12 months from the date of booking to which the builder failed i.e. the plot/shop site was to be allotted by June, 2007 but they did not allot the same. Thus, it established that offer of allotment was not made within the agreed period of 12 months. Therefore, once the appellants/builder have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, they cannot take the plea that at later date they had demanded the balance price of the plot and for non-payment of the same, the booking was cancelled. Once the appellants/opposite parties themselves were at fault, then after more than 2½ years the cancellation of the booking of plot carries no meaning.  So, they are liable to refund the amount alongwith interest.

8.      As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 09.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL