Delhi

StateCommission

CC/234/2014

KAMLESH SACHDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :  03.10.2018

Date of Decision : 09.10.2018

COMPLAINT NO.234/2014

In the matter of:

 

Kamlesh Sachdeva,

8/41 Geeta Colony,

P/o. Gandhi Nagar,

Delhi-110031.                                                                                      .........Complainant

Versus

 

The Managing Director,

TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

(Formerly Intime Propoters Pvt. Ltd.)

10 Sheed Bhagat Singh Marg,

Near Gole Market,

New Delhi-110001.

 

The Chairman,

TDI Infracorp. Ltd,

(Formerly Intime Propoters Pvt. Ltd.),

Vandana Building, 11 UGF,

Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

The Director,

TDI Infrastructure  Pvt. Ltd.,

(Formerly Intime Propoters Pvt. Ltd.),

Near Petrol Pump (GT Karnal Road),

Nangal Village, TDI Mall, Room No.123,

2^nd Floor, Kundli,

Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                        Yes/No

SHRI O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The case of the complainant is that she booked a plot for 250 sq. yards in Township known as “TDI” at Kundli District, Sonipat, Haryana @Rs.7,750/- per sq. yards + Rs.67,812.50 as corner charges. Corner plot no.K-434 was registered in her name. She paid Rs.3,87,500/- and Rs.23,250/- vide cheques dated 12.08.2005. She also paid EDC @Rs790/- per sq. yards amounting to Rs.1,97,500/- + additional EDC charges @Rs.1,254/- per sq. yards amounting to Rs.1,16,000/- + yet other charges @Rs.408.5/- per sq yards amounting to Rs.1,02,125/-. The total EDC charges come to Rs.4,15,625/- (there appears to be some mistake in amount described  in para-7 of the complaint. If charges @790/- per sq yards comes to Rs,1,97,500/- additional charges @1254/- per sq yards must be more than Rs.1,97,500/- and not Rs.1,16,000/- as mentioned by complainant).

 

2. Buyer agreement dated 02.09.13 was executed. Complainant paid Rs.22,27,187/- as per photocopy of current statement of payment dated 28.09.13 which is Annexure-D. It was agreed that complainant was to pay Rs.1,93,750/- (last demand)at the time of delivering of possession. The complainant had been enquiring about delivery of possession since March, 2007 and OP had been giving hopes that work was in quick progress and possession would be handed over soon. The complainant issued two notices dated 23.01.14 and 06.03.14 and met Senior Officials Shri Ravi Bhatia, Manager, Shri Vinay Narayan and Shri Deepak Dhingra. Hence this complaint for directing OP to restrain from doing what (not known). The complainant had also prayed for directions to the OP to forthwith hand over possession of corner residential plot, K-434 measuring 250 sq. yards in TDI City, Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana as per agreed stipulation of allotment letter and buyer agreement. OP may be directed to compensate the complainant for agony to the extent of Rs.42,73,690/- breakup of which is given in para-20 of the complaint. The same is Rs.9 lakhs for mental agony, Rs.1 lakhs for litigation charges, Rs.32,73,690/- towards interest @21% per annum w.e.f. March, 2007 to March, 2014 on principal amount of Rs.22,27,165/-, damages charges of Rs.2 lakhs have also been claimed.

 

3. It is strange that complainant wants Rs.42,73,875/- as compensation against Rs.22,27,165/- . In addition she wants possession also.

 

 

4. The OP filed WS raising preliminary objections that complainant booked the plot for investment purposes as she is residing in Geeta Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and booked a plot in Kundli, Haryana to book profits there upon. On merits the OP stated that it offered tentative size of the plot and the tentative area was subject to change in the size in accordance to clearance zoning plan of the township. The allotment letter provided for change in size of plot as well as price and other statutory charges were subject to change, if any, applicable in accordance with agreed terms and condition under the allotment letter and buyer agreement. The booking was done in the name of complainant and her brother Shri Madan  Lal Chawla. The  terms and condition of advance registration form are applicable to complainant as she entered into shoes of erstwhile allottee. The complainant opted  for plan-II method of payment under which strict time linked payment plan was to be made even when there was no demand by the OP.

 

5.  The complainant was yet to pay Rs.1,35,543/-  towards enhanced area EDC. The complainant admitted said demand in her reply dated 09.06.15. The OP issued letter of offer of possession dated 16.03.15 asking the complainant to clear her dues and take possession. If complainant is praying for plot which has already got increase in the price which complainant would enjoy, she can not simultaneously ask for interest on the amount paid.

 

 

6. The OP were always ready to offer possession of the plot subject to complainant making due payment. In the State Commission and Mediation Centre of State Commission the OP had offered plot of 250 sq yards in the same town as per demand of the complainant but complainant denied for the same which shows her illegal intention of taking advantage of consumer law for satisfying her illegal needs. OP was still ready to offer alternate plot of 250 sq. yards approximately subject to limited time, as availability of plots might last any day.

 

7. The complainant filed rejoinder stating that OP is demanding money from the complainant when it is aware that EDC is already paid. Enhanced EDC and other charges are not payable as directed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balwan Singh vs. Huda. Once allotment is made, term tentative does not exist and offer of alternative plot is illegal and non confirming to OPs terms and condition.

 

8. The complainant filed her own affidavit in evidence.

 

9. OP filed affidavit of Shri Paras Arora, AR in evidence.

 

10. Both the parties filed written arguments.

 

11. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Perusal of the file reveals that on 14.01.15 the husband of complainant stated that he was interested in having plot, if the plot is given to him. He also stated that he was ready to take plot in any other block i.e.  Block A, B, C or D at Kundli, Sonipat. On 05.10.15 the counsel for OP stated that he had given certain options of plot to the complainant. However it was stated that complainant was only interested in a corner plot in K-Block of 250 sq. Yards or in A, B, C, D Block. This means that complainant wanted corner plot even if it was in other blocks like A, B, C or D. On 10.07.18 the complainant with his AR, Shri G.P. Singh was present and stated that she was willing to pay for increased area but at initial rate. On 03.10.18 the OP offered to hand over another increased area plot. The husband of complainant declined to accept the offer by stating that complainant was willing to have 250 sq yards only. All this though shows that the complainant had been taking different stands so as to suit her taste on different dates.

 

12. We are not impressed by the objection of the OP that complainant was investor only. The reason being that OP has not cited any example of any other booking by complainant or sale thereof.

 

13. But on merits we are not impressed by the case put forward by the complainant. In complaint, the complainant no where mentioned that OP offered alternate plot of a bigger size. It came for the first time in written arguments of complainant that OP is offering plot of 331.53 sq. yards instead of original allotted plot of 250 sq. yards. This is so mentioned in para-5 of the written arguments of complainant.

 

14. A party can not be allowed to improve his case in evidence or in arguments. In complaint the complainant did not make any grievance about alternative plot or about increase in area of plot or about additional EDC being stayed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. She presented a very innocent case that she is not being offered the plot despite her having made substantial payment.

 

15. To say that once allotment is made, word tentative losses significance is very deceptive. The copy of agreement dated 02.09.13 which is at  pages-12 to 30 of the bunch of complaint reveals that as page-13 it is mentioned that seller has allotted plot no.434 (tentative) measuring 250 sq. yards. Allotment had been done by that time, if the word tentative had no meaning, it was un-necessary to use the said word in the agreement. The Court can not inpute any such meaning to defeat the agreement.

 

 

16. The booking was done in 2005, complaint was filed in 2014. The complainant was aware about feasibility of her getting possession by that time. Still she choose to seek possession and not refund. It may be that the complainant was hoping to get the plot free or in other  words for nothing as she was simultaneously praying for payment of Rs.65,00,877/- towards compensation, interest etc. though she had paid Rs.22,27,187/-. Thus we think that the complainant should be made bound by her prayer.

 

17. As a result of the above discussion we direct the OP to hand over plot No.K-434 in TDI City, Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana measuring 331.53 sq. yards (277.20 sq meters) on payment of balance amount at original rate of Rs.7,750/- per sq. yards within 2 months from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant would pay original EDC as agreed. The OP will not insist on additional EDC as per order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana        or interest on delayed payment, if any, club membership charges or infrastructure development charges or service charge. The complainant will pay stamp duty charges as per rate applicable and registration charges.

 

18. However since complainant is getting possession and that too at old rate, she would be availing appreciation in rates. That in itself is a sufficient compensation and so we do not deem it proper to award any separate compensation.

 

19. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

20. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                  

  MEMBER                                         MEMBER (JUDICIAL)