Haryana

StateCommission

A/948/2015

RAKESH KAUSHIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.PANWAR

02 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.948 of 2015

Date of the Institution:28.10.2015

Date of Decision:02.05.2017

 

Rakesh Kaushik son of Dharam Kaushik, resident of House No.980, Sector-15, Part-II, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

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

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

                                                                                                .….Respondents

Present:-    Mr.N.S Panwar, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Bhupender Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

First Appeal No.208 of 2016

Date of the Institution:10.03.2016

Date of Decision:02.05.2017

 

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

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

Through their authorized representative Sh.Tejinder Rathee son of Sh. D.PRathee, resident of House No.3280, Sector-15, Sonepat.

                                                                                                .….Appellants

                                                Versus

Rakesh Kaushik son of Dharam Kaushik, resident of House No.980, Sector-15, Part-II, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Bhupender Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellants

                    Mr. N.S.Panwar, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1.      This Order will dispose of Appeal 208 of 2016 filed by Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. -OPs against the order dated 17.09.2015 and Appeal No.948 of 2015 filed by Rakesh Kaushik-complainant, for the modification of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’). By this order, the complaint of Rakesh Kaushik has been partly allowed, by directing the OP 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.  

2.      Briefly stated, the complainant applied for a residential 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, OP promised that the possession of the flat would be given within a period of three years, but till date, they have not allotted the flat to the complainant. The respondents issued a letter dated 06.06.2011 that they were unable to provide the flat within time and they would provide another flat instead of the same. But it was also a false assurance of the respondents and finding no other alternative, the complainant filed complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protect Act before the DCDRF Gurgaon, but the same was returned with the direction to file the same. Aggrieved against this, the complainant filed the complaint for the redressal of his grievance, complaining harassment and mental agony etc.

3.      OP pleaded that total deposited amount by the complainant was 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 was liable to be dismissed and the same was also hopelessly time barred.   The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents. So, the complainant was not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Against the impugned Order, the OP/appellants have filed present appeal before us reiterating the same pleas, as raised before the District Forum by submitting that the OP was not liable to pay any compensation whatsoever, hence, the impugned order was totally wrong and illegal. On the other hand, the complainant in his Appeal has prayed for the allotment of the flat to him in already agreed price of allotment and to pay compensation @Rs.4,50,000/-.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. According to the documentary evidence produced by the parties, it is evident that the total amount deposited by  the complainant – appellant was Rs.7,91,000/- and not Rs.10,91,786/- with the respondents. But in any case no reasonable justification has been pleaded by the OP-appellants for not allotting the flat much less for the cancallation of the same. The period assured by them for delivering the possession of the flat could not be deferred from time to time, thereby fleecing the customers for an indefinite period. Such an unfair practice is not permitted under the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant- appellant shall remain entitled to the allotment of the flat as booked by him and assured by the OPs. 

6.      Regarding the plea of the OP-appellant about the alleged delay on the part of the complainant –appellant, the same is wholly untenable in law as it was a continuing cause of action right from the date of booking of till its possession of the flat. Therefore, the appeal Appeal 208 of 2016 filed by Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. -OPs is wholly without any merit and the same is dismissed. Appeal No.948 of 2015 filed by Rakesh Kaushik-complainant is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is modified with the direction to deliver possession of a flat to the complainant immediately within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The OPs are directed to settle the account of the complainant without charging interest of the delayed payment, if any. The OPs are also had liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.      Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.208 of 2016 be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

May 02nd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.