Haryana

StateCommission

A/369/2015

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDHYA - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 369 & 747 of 2015

Date of Institution: 23.04.2015 & 10.09.2015

Date of Decision: 29.01.2016

Appeal No.369 of 2015

1.      TDI Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Chief Managing Director.

2.      TDI City Kundli, Main NH-1, Kundli, District Sonipat through its Manager.

          Through their authorized representative Sh. Tejinder Rathee son of Sh. D.P. Rathee, Resident of House No.3280, Sector 15, Sonipat.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Sandhya wife of Rajvir Malik, Resident of House No.1404, Sector 15, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

Appeal No.747 of 2015

 

Smt. Sandhya wife of Rajvir Malik, Resident of House No.1404, Sector 15, Sonipat

Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      TDI Infrastructure Limited, Corporate office at: UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-11001, Through its Chief Managing Director.

2.      TDI City Kundli, Main NH-1, Kundli, District Sonipat through its Manager.

          Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Bhupender Singh, Advocate on behalf of Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate for TDI Infrastructure.

                             Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for Smt. Sandhya-complainant.

 

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.369 and 747 of 2015 having arisen out of the order dated March 4^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.462 of 2013.

2.      Sandhya-complainant, booked flat with TDI Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite parties, vide Registration Form (Exhibit R-1) by paying Rs.4.00 lacs vide receipt dated 18^th October, 2011 (Annexure-A). The basic cost of the flat was Rs.30.00 lacs. The allotment was to be made within six months from the date of application. The remaining amount was to be paid in instalments as per Construction Payment Plan annexed with the registration form. The complainant paid Rs.11,28,167/- to the builder but it did not allot the flat. Hence, she filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the builder to issue allotment/possession letter of the flat or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.11,28,167/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation, to pay Rs.50,000/- compensation for harassment etcetera and Rs.11,000/- litigation expenses.

3.      The builder/opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the sale consideration of the flat was tentatively fixed at Rs.34,79,579/-. The complainant was required to deposit the remaining amount as per payment plan. A letter dated 3^rd October, 2011 (Annexure R-2) demanding Rs.5,23,175/- as allotment money was issued, out of which the complainant paid Rs.3,28,167/- only. It was denied that the complainant deposited Rs.11,28,167/-, rather the total amount deposited was Rs.7,28,167/-. It was further stated that the complainant herself failed to perform her part of terms and conditions of the Registration Form and therefore was only entitled for refund of the amount subject to deduction of 20% of the sale consideration.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint issuing direction as under:-

“……..we have no hesitation to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.7,28,167/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization. The respondents are also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses”.

 

5.      Appeal No.369 of 2015 has been filed by TDI Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Parties for setting aside the impugned order and appeal No.747 of 2015 has been filed by Smt. Sandhya-Complainant for enhancement of compensation.

6.      Indisputably, the complainant had booked the flat with the builder on 5^th September, 2011 and paid Rs.4.00 lacs.  The complainant had filled up the Registration Form (Exhibit R-1) containing terms and conditions. As per Annexure-B of the Payment Plan, at the time of registration 15% amount was payable and thereafter 15% was to be deposited at the time of allotment. The total cost of the flat was Rs.30,00,000/- of which 15% works out to Rs.4,50,000/-.  The complainant deposited Rs.4,00,000/- on 5^th September, 2011 at the time of submitting the Registration Form (Exhibit R-1) and Rs.3,28,167/- on 30^th November, 2011. The payment of Rs.3,28,167/- was made within the extended period to make up 15% of the registration amount though it exceeded the registration amount. As per Clause 3 of the Registration Form (Exhibit R-1), the builder was obliged to make allotment within six months of the date of application. Clause 3 is reproduced as under:-

“3.     The allotment shall be made within 6 (six) months from date of application. At the receipt of the offer of allotment, the applicant shall accept the offer within 15 days of receipt of offer allotment by written communication. If the communication is not received within 15 days it shall be deemed to be accepted by the company”.

 7.     Undisputedly, allotment of flat has not been made till date.  The contention of the learned counsel for the builder is that since the complainant committed default in the payment as per schedule, therefore, she was liable to pay penalty as per the terms and conditions. It was stated that the allotment was to be made after the second instalment, that is, payment required to be deposited at the time of allotment had to be made first and thereafter the allotment letter was to be issued.

8.      Going by the terms and conditions given on the Registration Form (Exhibit R-1), the complainant was required to deposit 15% at the time of registration, which worked out to Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant has deposited Rs.7,28,167/-, that is, more than the 15% of the amount. The next 15% was to be deposited at the time of allotment. No allotment letter has been issued till date. Thus, the complainant was justified in seeking refund of the deposited amount as no allotment has been made till date. The District Forum has rightly directed the opposite parties/builder to refund the amount deposited alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realisation and Rs.5,000/- compensation. There is no illegality. The order is just and reasonable.

9.      In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the complainant has been granted adequate compensation and no case for enhancement is made out.

10.    Hence, both these appeals are dismissed. ‘

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.369 of 2015, 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: 29.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL