Haryana

StateCommission

A/609/2016

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAWAN KUMAR PAL - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.MONGA

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    609 of 2016

Date of Institution:    06.07.2016

Date of Decision :     04.08.2016

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) having its registered office at 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its authorised signatory Om Parkash Dhingra s/o Sh. Ladhu Ram.  

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Pawan Kumar Pal s/o Sh. M.C. Pal, Resident of House No.291, Sector 14, Sonipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal of Opposite Parties is directed against the order dated May 27^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.386 of 2015.

2.                Pawan Kumar Pal-complainant/respondent, booked a residential flat (measuring 1390 square feet), with TDI Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Party/appellant. The total price of the flat was Rs.35,53,460/-.  He paid Rs.3.00 lacs March 4^th, 2011 vide receipt Annexure A-1. The builder allotted flat No.T-16/0504, KTH (TUSCAN Heights), in Tuscan City, Kundli, Sonipat, vide allotment letter dated June 12^th, 2012 (Annexure A-2). The complainant further paid the instalments from time to time. In all the complainant paid Rs.13,50,230/- to the builder. However, the builder did not raise construction of the Tower in which the flat was allotted to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed seeking refund of the amount deposited.   

3.                The opposite party/builder, in its reply denied the claim of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant did not pay the instalments as per Construction Linked Plan and therefore, the builder cannot be said to be deficient in service.  However, it was admitted that the tower could not be constructed but offer of alternative flat was given to the complainant to which he did not agree. Thus, denying the claim of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the builder as under:-

“….we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.13,50,230/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of the deposit till its realization.”

5.                Indisputably, the complainant had booked a flat with the builder on March 4^th, 2011. He paid Rs.13,50,230/- to the builder against Rs.35,53,460/-, that is, the price of the flat.  Flat No.T-16/0504, KTH (TUSCAN Heights), in Tuscan City, Kundli, Sonipat, was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated June 12^th, 2012 (Annexure A-2).  It is also not in dispute that the builder did not start construction of the project where flat was booked and allotted to the complainant. However, offer of alternative flat being given, the complainant did not agree and he opted to take the refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest to which the builder refused.

6.                As per own admission of the builder, the construction of the tower was not raised even after expiry of about five years. The date of booking is not disputed. The builder has not delivered possession even till date. Thus, the complainant is certainly entitled to the refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest as the amount has been used by the builder. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-builder that the alternative flat was offered in the same locality but different tower, cannot be a defence to deny the complainant of his right to seek refund as the location of the tower and flat etc. are some of the considerations for the complainant to accept the flat. The complainant cannot be compelled to compromise location and accept alternative flat in some other tower. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

7.                In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

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

 

Announced 04.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL