Haryana

Sonipat

74/2014

Rakesh Kaushik s/o Dharam kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.,2. Intime Promoters - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan Bhardwaj

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.74 of 2014

                             Instituted on:24.03.2014

                             Date of order:17.09.2015

 

Rakesh Kaushik son of Dharam Kaushik, r/o H.No.980, Sector 15, Part II, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                       ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Director at present Tarasto Marg, Vandana Building, Ist Floor, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

2.M/s Intime Promoters known as TDI & Infrastructure, GT road, Kundli, Sonepat through its authorized person.

 

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Krishan Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondents.

         

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he applied for a flat with the respondents, who allotted him a flat measuring 1110 sq. feet at the rate of Rs.1750/- per sq. feet vide ID no.T3-1201 and customer ID NO.KD KFL-16691, new ID no.KFL-17577.  The complainant has made the payment of Rs.10,91,786/- to the respondents from time to time. At the time of allotment letter, it was promised that the possession of the flat will be given within a period of three years, but till date, they have not allotted the flat to the complainant. The respondents have issued a letter dated 6.6.2011 that they are unable to provide the flat within time and they will provide another flat instead of the present flat.  But it was also a false assurance of the respondents. Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed a complaint u/s 12 of C.P.Act before the DCDRF Gurgaon, but the same was returned with the direction to file another complaint in the competent court and at that time, it was orally assured by the respondents that they will amicably settled the dispute and the respondent asked the complainant to give atleast two years so that the respondents can provide him the flat, but till date the respondents have not provided any flat to the complainant. This wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that total deposited amount by the complainant is Rs.7,91,786/- and not Rs.10,91,786/-. The construction of Tower T3 could not be done due to some unavoidable circumstances, so the respondents vide letter dated 6.6.2011 offered the complainant an alternative flat in the same project and asked the complainant to come forward to collect the allotment letter on or before 18.6.2011, but the complainant did not pay any heed.  The complainant has not supplied the copy of any order regarding withdrawal of his previous complaint from DCDRF Gurgaon.  Hence, the present compliant is liable to be dismissed and the same is also hopelessly time barred.   The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.10,91,786/-   with the respondents. But the respondents have not handed over the possession of any flat to the complainant despite repeated requests and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.7,91,786/- and not Rs.10,91,786/-.  The construction of Tower T3 could not be done due to some unavoidable circumstances, so the respondents vide letter dated 6.6.2011 offered the complainant an alternative flat in the same project and asked the complainant to come forward to collect the allotment letter on or before 18.6.2011, but the complainant did not pay any heed.   The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record the statement of account for the period 10.4.2006 to 3.1.2012 and from this statement of account, it is established that  the complainant has deposited Rs.7,91,000/- and not Rs.10,91,786/- with the respondents because from the statement of account it appears that the cheque no.001995 dated 23.12.2006 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and cheque no.001996 dated 23.12.2006 worth Rs.1,50,000/- has not been debited from the account of the complainant.

         In the present case, in the written statement, the respondents have admitted that the construction of Tower T3 could not be done due to some unavoidable circumstance.  The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents to allot the flat in the name of the complainant.  But in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.7,91,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.7,91,000/- (Rs.seven lacs ninety one thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:17.09.2015