1.      Heard Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate, for the complainant and Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      TDI City Welfare Association (the complainant) is a voluntary consumer association, registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, having Registration No.SI 67862 of 2009 dated 23.12.2009. The complainant has filed above complaint, for directing TDI Infrastructure Limited (the OP) to (i) refund entire amount deposited by its members, on whose behalf the complaint was filed, to them, with interest @21% per annum, from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund; (ii) pay Rs.25/- lacs to each of them, as compensation for escalation of cost of construction due to delay; (iii) pay Rs.10/- lacs to each of them, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iv) pay Rs.25000/- per month to each of them, as compensation for rentals incurred by them, for the period of 9 years; (v) pay Rs.5/- lacs, as litigation costs; and (vi) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

3.      The complaint was filed on behalf of (i) Ms. Sheetal Garg, (ii) Ajay Kumar, (iii) Sandeep Garg & Pradeep Garg, (iv) Ms. Suman Kapur, (v) Rakesh Agarwal, (vi) Sanjeev Kumar Manhas, (vii) Naresh Poddar, (viii) Anand Saboo, and (ix) Ms. Mansi Jain. Ms. Suman Kapur has settled her dispute with the OP on 14.07.2021.The necessary facts relating to other members, on whose behalf the complaint has been filed, are as follows:-

(a) Ms. Sheetal Garg booked a plot of 250 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.437500/- on 20.11.2005. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 29.01.2006, allotted Plot No.885 (area 250 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.6150/- per sq. yard, Block-L, TDI City. Ms. Sheetal Garg deposited Rs.218750/- on 25.01.2006, Rs.49375/- on 30.01.2006, Rs.268125/- on 03.04.2006, Rs.200000/- on 14.04.2007, Rs.200000/- on 31.03.2008, Rs.207500/- on 28.04.2008, total Rs.1581250/-. Total cost of the plot was Rs.1537500/- + EDC Rs.197500/-. The OP, vide letter dated 17.01.2012, informed that she has been allotted Plot No.H-172-A, in lieu of Plot No.L-885 and she was called for paper formalities.

(b) Harjit Kaur Sogi & Karpal Singh Sogi booked a plot of 250 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.387500/- on 22.08.2005. Harjit Kaur Sogi & Karpal Singh Sogi assigned their booking to Ajay Kumar and executed an Indemnity deed on 26.09.2005. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 17.02.2006, allotted Plot No.664 (area 250 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.7750/- per sq. yard, Block-J, TDI City to Ajay Kumar, who deposited Rs.49375/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.49375/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.193750/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.193750/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.193750/- on 30.06.2006, Rs.98750/- on 30.06.2006, Rs.193750/- on 11.10.2006, Rs.193750/- on 26.10.2006, Rs.387500/- on 18.05.2007, Rs.218125/- on 31.07.2009, Rs.91512/- on 20.10.2011, Rs.21812/- on 20.10.2011, total Rs.2272699/- Total cost of the plot was Rs.1937500/- + EDC Rs.197500/-.

(c)     Ms. Nagina Passi booked a plot of 350 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.567875/- on 10.11.2005, Rs.198625/- on 12.01.2006, Rs.69125/- on 12.01.2006, Rs.324625/- on 16.02.2006 and Rs.395127/- on 13.06.2006. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 19.01.2006, allotted Plot No.254 (area 350 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.7350/- per sq. yard, Block-J, TDI City. Ms. Nagina Passi assigned her right in plot to Sandeep Garg & Pradeep Garg and gave an Indemnity deed on 16.04.2007. Sandeep Garg & Pradeep Garg deposited Rs.1020624/- on 16.04.2007 and Rs.395375 on 08.07.2009. Total cost of the plot was Rs.2831500/- + EDC Rs.566300/- and total amount paid was Rs.2881375/-. The OP executed Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 27.09.2007, in favour of Sandeep Garg & Pradeep Garg.

(d)     Rakesh Agarwal booked a plot of 350 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.542500/- on 06.09.2005. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 12.02.2006, allotted Plot No.642 (area 350 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.7750/- per sq. yard, Block-J, TDI City to him. He deposited Rs.340375/- on 08.02.2006, Rs.409500/- on 20.05.2006 Rs.409500/- on 22.05.2006, Rs.1425375/- on 06.09.2008, Rs.528767/- on 06.09.2008, Rs.15000/- on 06.09.2008, Rs.305375/- on 06.11.2009, total Rs.3023125/-. Total cost of plot was Rs.2712500/- + EDC Rs.276500/-.

(e)     Vipul Kumar Jain booked a plot of 250 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.1166250/- on 22.08.2005. Vipul Kumar Jain assigned his right in plot to Sanjeev Kumar Manhas and gave an Indemnity deed. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 10.12.2005, allotted Plot No.472 (area 250 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.7750/- per sq. yard, Block-L, TDI City to Sanjeev Kumar Manhas, who deposited Rs.37000/- on 22.08.2005, Rs.350000/- on 18.01.2006, Rs.41000/- on 18.01.2006, Rs.193750/- on 18.01.2006, Rs.8400/- on 18.01.2006, Rs.535600/- on 01.05.2006, Rs.350000/- on 20.06.2007, Rs.50000/- on 20.06.2007, Rs.250000/- on 20.06.2007 and Rs.125000/- on 20.06.2007, total Rs.2159375/-. Total cost of plot was Rs.1937500/- + EDC Rs.197500/-.

(f)   Naresh Poddar booked a plot of 250 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.387500/- on 12.08.2005. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 10.02.2006, allotted Plot No.478 (area 250 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.7750/- per sq. yard, Block-K, TDI City to him. Naresh Poddar deposited Rs.193750/- on 06.02.2006, Rs.94375/- on 06.02.2006 total Rs.630625/-. Total cost of plot was Rs.1937221/- + EDC Rs.197471/-.

(g)     Anand Saboo booked a plot of 250 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.437500/- on 19.11.2005. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 17.02.2006, allotted Plot No.465 (area 250 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.8750/- per sq. yard, Block-J, TDI City to him. Anand Saboo deposited Rs.218750/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.150000/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.68750/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.49375/- on 13.02.2006, Rs.218750/- on 30.12.2006, Rs.218750/- on 14.03.2007, Rs.205093/- on 12.07.2012, Rs.140000/- on 12.07.2012, total Rs.1947501/-. Total cost of plot was Rs.2187500/- + EDC Rs.197500/-.

(h)     Ms. Garima Taneja booked a plot of 250 sq. yards and deposited booking amount of Rs.437500/- on 18.11.2005. Garima Taneja assigned her right in the booking to Ms. Nidhi Munjal and Mr. Sujeet Singh, who assigned their right in plot to Ms. Mansi Jain and gave a letter for transfer. The OP, vide allotment letter dated 06.02.2006, allotted Plot No.364 (area 250 sq. yards), sale price @Rs.7750/- per sq. yard, Block-I, TDI City to her. Ms. Mansi Jain deposited Rs.218750/- on 03.02.2006, Rs.49375/- on 03.02.2006, Rs.437500/- on 15.12.2006, Rs.49375/- on 15.12.2006, Rs.200000/- on 01.12.2007, Rs.205000/- on 01.12.2007, Rs.98750/- on 08.02.2008, Rs.663750/- on 08.02.2008, Rs.218125/- on 29.07.2009, total Rs.2162500/-. Total cost of plot was Rs.2187500/- + EDC Rs.197500/-.

4.      The complainant stated that TDI Infrastructure Limited (the OP) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. The OP launched an integrated township of residential/ commercial plots, in the name of “TDI City” at Kundli, district Sonipat, Haryana, in the year 2009 and made wide publicity that township was being developed in 1000 acre land under Development Licences granted by Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Believing upon the representations of the OP, above members/their predecessors booked a residential plot of sizes 250/350 sq. yards, in the year 2005 and deposited booking amount. The OP allotted residential plots on different dates from December, 2005 to January, 2007, in Blocks H, I, J, K, L. The OP realized more than 95% of the consideration up to December, 2007 to July, 2009 under the threat of cancellation and forfeiture from all the members except Naresh Poddar. The OP used to issue demand notices in the head of enhanced EDC and penal interest on it. The OP developed 415 acre land out of total 981.5 acre land and obtained “part completion certificate” on 18.11.2013. The blocks H, I, J, K, L, in which, the members of the complainant are allotted plots, basic amenities, like water supply, electricity, sewerage disposal, demarcation, horticulture etc. are not developed/started although 11 years have expired from booking. In spite of various letters, reminders to the OP and complaints to various development authorities, the OP did not offer possession of the plot. Due to inordinate delay in possession, cost of construction is rising high day to day. The members of the complainant are residing in rented accommodation and paying rent. Then this complaint was filed on 10.10.2016, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

5.      The opposite party filed its written reply on 25.10.2017, in which booking of the plot, allotment of the plot and deposit made by the members of the complainant, have not been disputed. The opposite party stated that Ajay Kumar, Sandeep Garg & Pradeep Garg, Sanjeev Manhas and Ms. Mansi Jain are not original allottees rather subsequent purchasers from open market. Naresh Poddar deposited Rs.630625/- till 06.02.2006 out of total cost of plot of Rs.1937221/- + EDC Rs.197471/-. In spite of various demands/reminders, he did not deposit balance price, as such, his allotment was cancelled on 01.11.2007 and his complaint is time barred. The members of the complainant invested money in real estate, for commercial purpose and are not consumers. Sale of plot does not fall within the ambit of consumer legislation. The members booked their plots at different time in different block, some of them are defaulters and not on same footing as such one complaint on their behalf is not maintainable. It has been denied that the plots allotted to the members of the complainant are not developed and basic amenities, like water supply, electricity, sewerage disposal, demarcation, horticulture etc. are not available to these blocks. The members of the complainant are allotted plots in blocks H, I, J, K, L, in which, all promised amenities are developed and agreements are executed in favour of the neighbouring allottees and they have taken possession. External Development Charges (EDC) are statutory charges and realized on pro-rata basis. Government of Haryana enhanced the rate of EDC, as such, enhanced amount was realized by the OP. Government of Haryana was realizing penal interest on delayed payment of enhanced EDC. No time for delivery of possession was provided as such, it cannot be said that the OP has committed deficiency in service. Economic destabilization of the country due to steep global economic disturbance has adversely affected real estate industry and the real estate developers are facing difficult times with falling demand, negligible sales, depleting cash flow, increased borrowing costs, costs of development and labour. Due to unforeseen circumstances resulted into hindrances in development, which also led to shortfall of cash flow. The farmers, whose land has been acquired also used to raise disturbance time to time, due to all these reasons beyond the control of the OP, the project was delayed. The OP is developing an area 1097.894 acres land at Kundli, as TDI City, for which, various licences were granted for different area of land. But entire land has been amalgamated into one integrated township. Completion/occupation certificate are being issued as per development licences and at present, the OP has obtained Completion/occupation certificate in respect of 415 + 109.5 acres land. The OP has offered possession over about 4100 plots, 2800 flats, 500 shops and 400 residential floors in TDI City, at Kundli. The reason for non-delivery of possession is attributable to the members of the complainant as they have been non-compliant with the agreed terms. In the allotment letter, basic price has been mentioned but at the time of offer of possession EDC, IDC, service tax, other statutory taxes and cess are also payable. It is denied that the members of the complainant used to approach the OP time to time for taking possession but the OP abstained from responding.          

6.      The complainant filed Rejoinder Reply and stated that Plot No.L-885 does not exist. The OP could not obtain ‘completion certificate’ in respect of Plot Nos. J-664, J-254, J-642, J-465. The OP obtained ‘completion certificate’ of Plot No. L-472 on 18.11.2013 and offered possession 27.01.2016 with delay of about 5 years but no delay compensation was paid. The OP obtained ‘completion certificate’ of Plot No. I-364 on 22.09.2017 but did not offer possession. Basic amenities, like water supply, electricity, sewerage disposal, demarcation, horticulture etc. are not available to any plot allotted to the members of the complainant, till the date. The complainant filed judgment of this Commission dated 13.04.2016 passed in CC/246/2010, Gurdarshan Singh Kalra Vs. TDI Infrastructure Limited, which related to the plot situated in “K-Block of TDI City, Kundli”, in which, this Commission, relying upon the local inspection report dated 02.02.2016, held that at one place board of Block-K was paced but entire place, which had some unconnected lamppost was just like jungle. The plots have not been demarcated and one cannot identify his plot.

7.      The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of document of Subhash Garg and Affidavits of Ms. Sheetal Garg, Ajay Kumar, Sandeep Garg, Rakesh Agarwal, Sanjeev Kumar Manhas, Anand Saboo and Ms. Mansi Jain, Naresh Paddar. The OP has filed Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Admission/Denial of document of Paras Arora. The OP filed IA/2397/2022, for adducing Additional Evidence. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.

8.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Relying upon the judgment of this Commission in Moulivakkam Trust Heights Flat Affected Buyer’s Association Vs. M/s. Prime Sristi Housing Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 163 and Supreme Court in Brigade Enterprises Vs. Anil Kumar Virmani, (2022) 4 SCC 138, the counsel for the OP submitted, the complaint consists four categories of the allottees i.e. (i) whose booking has been cancelled, (ii) who has settled the dispute, (iii) who has been offered possession and (iv) who has obtained sale deed from the OP. The grievances of these persons are not identical and one complaint is not maintainable. Supreme Court in Brigade Enterprises Vs. Anil Kumar Virmani, (2022) 4 SCC 138, held that the complaint can be filed by one or more consumers jointly, who may or may not have same interest. At present, the complaint can be filed by one or more consumers jointly or on their behalf by a ‘recognised consumer association, who may or may not have same interest under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP has set up its defence, as such, individual grievance can be examined without prejudice to anyone. Supreme Court in Wg, Cdr. Arifur Rehman Vs. DLF Southern Homes Private Limited, (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that execution of sale deed during pendency of the complaint, does not affect the other rights/remedies claimed in the complaint. In Debashis Sinha Vs. R.N.R. Enterprises (2023) 3 SCC 195, held that any deficiency detected post purchase, opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before consumer fora.

9.      So far as limitation is concerned, except         Naresh Poddar, the other allottees have neither been offered possession nor denied till filing of the complaint as such they have continuing cause of action as held by Supreme Court in M. Siddique Vs. Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1 and Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 428.  

10.    Naresh Poddar (Plot No.K-478) deposited Rs.387500/- on 12.08.2005, Rs.193750/- on 06.02.2006, Rs.94375/- on 06.02.2006, total Rs.630625/-. The OP has stated that in spite of various demands/ reminders, he did not deposit balance price, as such, his allotment was cancelled on 01.11.2007 and his complaint is time barred. Naresh Poddar, in his Affidavit has stated that after deposit of Rs.630625/-, he asked the OP to execute Buyer’s Agreement but the OP did not respond as such he stopped further payment as no development work was going on. In spite of cancellation of the allotment, the OP revised his statement of account on 12.08.2010 and raised demand of Rs.2646351/- and on 20.07.2011 and raised demand of Rs.2936803/-. He visited the office of the OP on 20.07.2011 and requested to waive interest but they did not respond. He gave a letter dated 18.07.2013 to waive interest. It is only in January, 2016, the OP refused to entertain him, then the complaint was filed. Naresh Poddar admits that his statement of account was revised on 12.08.2010 and 20.07.2011 and the OP refused to waive interest on 20.07.2011. The complaint was filed on 10.10.2016. There is nothing on record that the OP gave any demand letter after 20.07.2011. The claim of Naresh Paddar is barred by limitation as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11.    Some of the allottees are not being original allottee of the OP, is concerned, Supreme Court in Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Charanjeet Singh, AIR 2021 SC 4229, held that a subsequent purchaser steps into shoes of original allottee. At the most period for possession can be counted from the date of his transfer. Although Ajay Kumar (allotted on 17.02.2006 and last deposit on 20.10.2011), Sandeep Garg & Pradeep Garg (allotted on 16.04.2007 and last deposit on 08.07.2009), Sanjeev Manhas (allotted on 10.12.2005 and last deposit on 03.06.2011) and Ms. Mansi Jain (allotted on 06.02.2006 and last deposit on 29.07.2009) are not original allottees but transfer/allotment in their favour on the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the OP has realized more than 95% consideration. Even after more than ten years of deposit, the OP could not develop their plots and offer possession to them.

12.    Along with IA/2397/2022, the OP has filed copies of letters dated 19.03.2019, issued to Ms. Sheetal Garg, 05.06.2018, issued to Ajay Kumar, 10.06.2019, issued to Sandeep Garg & Pradeep Garg, 05.06.2018, issued to Rakesh Agarwal, 05.06.2018, issued to Anand Saboo, 05.06.2018, issued to Ms. Mansi Jain, offering them to choose any alternate plot and take possession of it within 15 days. From these letters it is proved that the promised amenities are not developed as on the date of issue of these letters in blocks H, I, J, K, L, in which, the members of the complainant were allotted plots. So far as these letters are concerned, the complainant has stated that it is another attempt of the OP to misguide the allottees and further prolong delivery of possession. In these letters, the OP has not given number of alternate plots. As admitted, the OP is developing an area 1097.894 acres land at Kundli, as TDI City, and obtained completion/occupation certificate in respect of 415 acres land on 22.09.2017. The OP has stated that they have further obtained completion/occupation certificate 109.5 acres land but it has not been produced. The OP has stated that it had offered possession over about 4100 plots, 2800 flats, 500 shops and 400 residential floors in TDI City, at Kundli. In such circumstances alternate offer without mentioning plot number, raises a serious doubt in respect of bonafide of the OP. Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711, Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Limba, (2018) 5 SCC 442, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725, Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 (6) SCALE 462 and has held that the home buyer cannot be made to wait for indefinite period for possession.

13.    The complainant has filed IA/3258/2022, for lodging criminal complaint against the OP. It has been stated that several criminal cases have been registered against the OP as such we do not propose to lodge one more criminal complaint against the OP.

O R D E R

          In view of aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed, with cost of Rs.one lac, payable to each members of the complainant  on whose behalf this complaint has been filed (except Suman Kapur and Naresh Poddar). The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the members of the complainant (except Suman Kapur and Naresh Poddar) on whose behalf this complaint has been filed, with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. IA/3258/2022 is rejected.