Haryana

StateCommission

A/571/2016

TDI INFRACORP LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJIV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

AMAN SHARMA

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    571 of 2016

Date of Institution:    24.06.2016

Date of Decision :    20.12.2016

M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) having its registered office at Upper Ground Floor, Vananda Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorised signatory Shri O.P. Dhingra.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Rajiv Kumar s/o Sh. Dharam Chand, Resident of House No.145, Mohanpura, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Aseem Gupta, Advocate for respondent. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Party is in appeal against the order dated May 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Rajiv Kumar-complainant/respondent, was accepted directing the builder to refund the deposited amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

2.                The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party-builder in its project namely “Kingsbury Flats” Sonipat, vide application Exhibit C-1. The Basic Price of the flat was Rs.26,40,625/-. He paid Rs.3.00 lacs vide receipt dated 22^nd February, 2006 (Exhibit C-4) and Rs.4.00 lacs vide receipt dated 25^th February, 2006 (Exhibit C-3). The remaining amount was to be paid as per payment plan Exhibit C-7.  The grievance of the complainant is that the builder did not allot flat despite repeated requests. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum seeking refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation etcetera.  

3.                The opposite party-builder contested complaint raising plea that the complainant did not pursue his booking. The complainant was called upon telephonically to come and get the allotment of flat done in his favour by depositing the due amount but he did not come. So, the booking was cancelled vide Customer ID dated 6^th August, 2010 (Exhibit C-6). It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-builder, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                The impugned order has been assailed on behalf of the appellant-builder raising plea that the booking of the complainant was cancelled in 2010 while the complaint was filed in 2015. So, the complaint was barred by limitation. It was further argued that since the complainant did not come forward to pay the balance price of the plot, the builder was justified in canceling the booking.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. There is nothing on the record to show that the complainant was ever informed by the builder about the alleged allotment of flat. So, there was recurring cause of action in favour of the complainant for filing the present complaint; thus the complaint was well within limitation. Indisputably, the complainant had booked a flat with the builder on 22^nd February, 2006. He paid Rs.7.00 lacs to the builder but flat was not allotted to him.  Even the builder did not start construction. The complainant sought refund of the deposited amount which the builder refused.

7.                In view of the above, the complainant is certainly entitled to the refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest as the amount has been used by the builder. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

8.                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 20.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL