Haryana

StateCommission

A/951/2016

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PITAMBAR LAL - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.MONGA

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      951 of 2016

Date of Institution:      10.10.2016

Date of Decision :       13.11.2017

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited (formerly M/s Intime Promoters Private Limited) through its Authorised Signatory Amit Batra, 10, Shaheed, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Pitamber Lal s/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Resident of House No.380, Rajender Anuvati Tower, PL-29-30, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate proxy for Shri Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated August 31^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited (TDI)-Opposite Party No.1, developed a commercial project known as TDI Park Street Mall at Sonipat. Pitamber Lal-complainant (respondent herein) got booked a plot ID No.GF-20 measuring 883.93 Sq. feet in this project at the rate of Rs.4750/-per Sq. feet and deposited an amount of Rs.7.00 lacs vide cheque dated May 18^th, 2005. The remaining sale price amount was to be paid as per Construction Linked Plan. Thereafter, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.4,19,866/- vide cheque No.333581 dated August 22^nd, 2008 and Rs.1,39,733/- vide cheque No.333582 dated August 22^nd, 2008. The complainant by this time has already deposited an amount of Rs.12,59,599/- with the opposite parties. Till the date of filing of the complaint, the opposite parties did not start construction work. The complainant is required to make payment of the remaining instalments of the sale price as per Construction Linked Plan. The opposite parties were required to hand over possession after completion of construction within three years. The complainant alleged that it is a clear case of deficiency in service. The complainant has also suffered loss to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month on account of loss of rent. The complainant had to face un-necessary harassment and mental agony due to faults of the opposite parties.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs.12,59,599/- already deposited by him along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum; to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of expiry of three years period from the date of booking as rent and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.

4.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. It is admitted fact that in the commercial project launched by the opposite parties, the complainant got booked a shop measuring 883.93 Sq. feet. However, size of the said shop was reduced from 883.93 Sq. feet to 594.21 Sq. feet. It is denied that the opposite parties did not start construction work. In fact, the construction work at the site is in advance stage and was in full swing. It is admitted fact that payment of the sale price amount was to be paid as per Construction Linked Plan. In fact, the complainant himself failed to make payment of installments of the sale price amount as per Construction Linked Plan. The opposite parties had written demand letters dated July 29^th, 2010; September 03^rd, 2010 and December 02^nd, 2010 but the complainant did not make payment of the amount. Ultimately when the installments were not paid as per Construction Linked Plan, the opposite parties issued letter dated January 13^th, 2012 regarding cancellation of the unit. It is denied that the opposite parties were required to hand over possession after completion of construction within three years from the date of booking. The complainant is not entitled for refund of any amount as claimed in the complaint. The opposite parties have prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated August 31^st, 2016 the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed directing the opposite parties to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

6.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated August 31^st, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party – M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited has filed the present appeal bearing No.951 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complaint.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. None appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of arguments.

8.                During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the opposite party No.1 - Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, developed a commercial project known as TDI Park, Street Mall at Sonipat. It is also admitted fact that the complainant got booked a commercial unit bearing No.GF-20 measuring 883.93 Sq. feet at the rate of Rs.4750/-per Sq. feet. An amount of Rs.7.00 lacs was deposited vide cheque dated May 18^th, 2005. The remaining sale price amount was to be paid in installments as per Construction Linked Plan. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.4,19,866/- vide cheque No.333581 dated August 22^nd, 2008 and an amount of Rs.1,39,733/- vide cheque No.333582 dated August 22^nd, 2008. In this way, admittedly the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.12,59,599/- as part payment of the total sale price up to August 22^nd, 2008. It is also admitted fact that thereafter the complainant did not make payment of installments despite time and again demand letters received from the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also taken plea that later on the size of the plot was reduced from 883.93 sq. feet to 594.21 Sq. ft. The opposite party No.1 issued demand letters dated July 29^th, 2010; September 03^rd, 2010 and December 02^nd, 2010 (Annexure R-1 to R-3) to make payment of the installments of the remaining sale price amount. It is evident from the letter dated January 13^th, 2012 (Annexure R-4) that due to non-payment of installments of the remaining sale price amount, the allotment in the name of the complainant has been cancelled.

9.                Version of the complainant is that he did not make payment of installments of the remaining sale price amount because the remaining installments were to be paid as per Construction Linked Plan. The complainant made payment of the installments up to August 22^nd, 2008 and thereafter the complainant did not take risk to make payment of the remaining installments as by that time, the opposite parties did not start construction of the project or the unit allotted to the complainant. Version of the complainant is that till the date of filing of the complaint also, the opposite parties did not start construction work. The opposite parties have taken plea in their written version that the construction work has been started. In fact, the construction work at the sight is in advance stage and is on full swing. The opposite parties did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove that the construction work has been started. The opposite parties could have easily placed on the file photographs to bring to the knowledge of the District Forum that what is the progress of construction work at the spot. The opposite parties also did not adduce in evidence any such report or other proof to establish that the construction work is on full swing and is near completion. In this way, the opposite parties could not prove that the construction work was started prior to the date of filing of the present complaint. The opposite parties also failed to prove that the construction work was started in time and the demand letters were issued as per Construction Linked Plan. In this way, fear in the mind of the complainant was justified up to some extent of taking risk of depositing the remaining installments of the sale price amount. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, learned District Forum has given direction to the opposite party to refund the total amount deposited by the complainant Rs.12,59,599/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. We feel the findings given by the learned District Forum in the circumstances mentioned above appear to be correct, valid and justified.

10.              No other point was raised during the course of arguments.

11.              Resultantly, we find no illegality and invalidity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. Findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

12.              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 expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 13.11.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

CL