Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/300

ASHOK GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision :  29.04.2015

Complaint Case No.300/2011

       

 

Ashok Goyal

36-37, Naya Bazar,

•  

New Delhi-110043                     …Complainant

                                                      

VERSUS

    M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd.

    9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

    New Delhi-110001                     …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.       Admittedly the complainant Sh. Ashok Goyal got booked a flat with M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (in short the OP). On 22.02.2006 after paying an amount of Rs. 4 Lacs OP issued letter dt. 12.11.2010 to the complainant conveying him that the flat No. W7-0703 stood allotted to him. It is also an admitted case of the parties that by 25.02.2011, the complainant had paid in all an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs to the OP. The basic price of the flat was Rs. 29,29,000/-. It is also not disputed by the parties that the letter of demand dt. 24.08.2011 was issued by the OP to the complainant calling upon him to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 23,38,926/- by 06.09.2011. Contention of the complainant is that after having received the said letter, he went to the office of the OP to pay the amount of Rs. 26,38,926/-. He had gone to the office of the OP on 05.09.2011 with a cheque for an amount of Rs. 23,38,926/-. Contention of the complainant is that one Sh. Sahil Bhatia, an employee of the OP informed him that his flat stood already cancelled. Another representative of the Company named Sh. Saurabh Vij on the pretext of showing the letter of demand to one of his Senior Officers, took the file from him and tried to take out the original letter of demand. Complainant pleaded that he had only one copy with him and he wanted Sh. Saurabh Vij to take down the particulars of the letter. Upon this said Sh. Saurabh Vij snatched the letter of demand from the complainant. An altercation took place. The OP did not receive the said cheque for an amount of Rs. 23,38,926/-. Complainant filed the present complaint on 14.09.2011 i.e. within a period of 10 days of the aforesaid incident.
2.       OP however admits the abovesaid incident and the letter of demand dt. 24.08.2011 sent to the complainant. Complainant filed his affidavit towards evidence on 22.03.2013. Complainant has given the details of the incident pertaining to 05.09.2011 when he made an attempt to tender the outstanding payment of Rs. 23,38,926/-. He also referred to the altercation that took place between him and Sh. Saurabh Vij, an officer of the OP Company. Complainant has also mentioned that one Sh. Sahil Bhatia an employee of the OP had informed him about the cancellation of the flat. The details of these incidents have been mentioned in Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the affidavit filed by the complainant. On the other hand, OP has remained silent on all these counts.
3.       Ld. Counsel for the OP Sh. Rajat Bhardwaj Advocate submitted during the course of arguments that in Para 23 of his affidavit the OP stated that the complainant had come up with a concocted story. OP has also drawn the attention of this Commission to the next averment in the affidavit where the OP states that had the complainant come up with the payment he would have never refused. Complainant has approached this Court within a period of ten days of the alleged incident. OP has not filed any correspondence after issuing the letter of demand dt. 24.08.2011. The OP even did not care to issue a letter of cancellation of flat to the complainant after 24.08.2011. In Para 14 of his written arguments, OP stated that due to default on the part of the complainant, he had cancelled the registration. No such cancellation allegedly done by the OP at any point of time has been placed on record. OP has not specifically replied to any plea of the complainant relating to the incident that took place on 05.09.2011. Silence on the part of the OP leads to the inference that the version of the complainant is worthy of credit.
4.       Complainant admittedly got the flat booked in the year 2006. A period of about nine years has expired. OP by hook or crook tried not to handover the possession of the flat to the complainant. Dream of the complainant of having his own home is shattered. We, therefore, direct the OP to pay to the complainant as under:-

1. to refund an amount of Rs. 10 Lac to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation.
2. to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lac for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony, frustration and anguish.
3. to pay to the complainant litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 2 Lac.

The abovesaid payment shall be made by the OP to the complainant within a period of sixty days from the receipt of these orders failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. after the expiry of thirty days and uptil date the of its realisation.

5.       Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
6.       Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record.

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S C Jain)

Member