Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/338

TARA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

-+IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

                                                             Date of Decision: 27.08.2018

Complaint Case No.338/2011

In the matter of:

	Mrs. Tara Devi w/o. Mr. Krishan Chand BN-5, West Sharlimar Bagh, New Delhi	:
	Mrs. Aparna w/o. Sushil Manglani s/o. Sh. Krishan Chand BN-5, West Sharlimar Bagh, New Delhi		Complainants

           

Versus

 

TDI Infrastructure Ltd. 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001

:

Opposite Party

 

                            

CORAM  :  N P KAUSHIK

:

Member (Judicial)

 

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

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

Cases relied upon:

1.         Shri Puneet Malhotra v. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., II (2015) CPJ 18 (NC)

2.         Swarn Talwar and Others v. Unitech Limited decided by National Commission in CC No. 347/2014 on 14.08.2015

3.         Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. v M/s. Unitech Ltd. and Others decided by Hon’ble National Commission in CC No. 427/2014 on 08.06.2015
 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. Complainants Ms. Tara Devi and Ms. Aprana booked a plot measuring 350 sq. yards with TDI Infrastructure Ltd., 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (in short OP) on 17.01.2005.  A plot buyer’s agreement dated 17.03.2007 was executed between the complainant and the OP.  In 2008 OP transferred the plot in the names of the complainants as the initial booking was done by the OP in favour of one Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain.

 

2. Basic sale price of the plot was Rs.16,61,692/-.  Out of the said amount complainant admittedly paid Rs.12,73,375/- to the OP.  Plot was agreed to be delivered in a period of 16 months.  In February 2009, OP raised demand of the balance 30% of the total sale consideration.  Upon this, complainant visited the site on 14.06.2009 and found that the entire area was lying completely undeveloped.  Vide letter dated 21.02.2009 complainant sent to the OP the photographs of the site and asked it to develop the plot before making further demands of money.  OP warned the complainant against cancellation of the plot.  Deterred by the threat of cancellation, complainant issued six cheques to the OP towards entire balance amount to save her plot.  The said cheques were however issued under protest.  OP was cautioned to take the matter to the court of law.  It offended the OP.  There was also a rise in the prices of the property.  OP cancelled the plot vide letters dated 31.07.2010 and 02.08.2010.  Complainant made representations to the OP.  She also informed that there was no electricity or water supply to the site.  Even the roads were not constructed.  There was no demarcation of plots.  The entire land looked like an agricultural field.  OP did not respond to the representations dated 12.09.2010, 28.09.2010 & 20.10.2010.

 

3. On an RTI filed by the complainant, it was revealed that there was no occasion for enhancement of EDC by the Government of Haryana. 

 

4. With the aforesaid averments, complainant submitted that even after a span of 9 years the area was lying undeveloped.   Till filing of the complaint, 70% of the payment stood made.  Payment plan was ‘development linked plan’ and the complainant was not required to pay more than 60% of the sale consideration.  Complainant submitted that even today crops were standing at the site. 

 

5. Defence raised by the OP was that vide its letter dated 02.02.2009, it called upon the complainant to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.3,88,317/-  A reminder dated 22.08.2009 was issued.  It was followed by reminders dated 09.02.2010, 04.03.2010 and 02.08.2010.  Vide letter dated 20.08.2010, OP asked the complainant to surrender the original documents, receipts, allotment letter, plot buyer agreement.  OP called upon the complainant to collect ‘refund’ after deducting the earnest money on or before 31.08.2010.  Two reminders in this behalf were issued.

 

 

6. OP admitted having issued the letters of cancellation on 31.07.2010 and 15.02.2010.

 

7. OP further submitted that the project in question was a part of 1000 acres development known as TDI City which forms a small part of the entire township.  Some parts are developed while others have not been developed.  As on date over 500 families are staying in the said area.  Next submission of the OP is that it was not bound to construct a residential unit.  Its duty is only to develop internal roads, facade, sewerage system and make provision for water and electricity. 

 

8. During the pendency of the complaint, complainant moved an application dated 27.03.2017 submitting that even on his visit to the site during the pendency of the litigation, he found no development.  He filed photographs of the area.  Complainant submitted that no part of the project was complete in the year 2008.  It was on the directions of Hon’ble National Commission that part completion certificate dated 18.11.2013 was filed by the OP on 26.11.2015.  The said completion certificate was rejected by the Hon’ble National Commission as the same did not pertain to any particular block.  Complainant submitted that criminal proceedings against the OP were instituted by another allottee named Sh. Harbhajan Singh in Patiala House Courts New Delhi.  Complainant placed on record a copy of the Hon’ble National Commission’s orders dated 08.01.2016 vide which Sh. S.L. Khanna, Additional District Judge (Retd.) was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and submit a status report.  Ld. Local Commissioner filed his report with 60 photographs showing the entire area lying undeveloped.  Complainant referred to the orders dated 13.04.2016 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission observing that the entire place was looking like a ‘Jungle’. 

 

9. In reply to the abovesaid application, OP submitted that it had already offered possession of plot vide letter dated 05.11.2008.  It was the complainant who failed to make the payment of the amount outstanding against her.  For this reason OP had to cancel the booking.  In relation to the orders dated 13.04.2016 issued by the Hon’ble National Commission, while conceding to the position, OP submitted that an appeal filed by him was pending in the Supreme Court.  OP submitted that it received completion certificate for an area of 109.5 acres with regard to the same project.  He also received occupation certificate for other areas of the township.  OP admitted that another buyer Sh. Harbhajan Singh had lodged criminal proceedings against it in Patiala House Courts, New Delhi which are pending trial.  Similar proceedings lodged by one Sh. Gurudarshan Singh Kalra were also pending before the Supreme Court.  OP also admitted pendency of some other litigations which are not highly relevant in the present context. 

 

10. A relevant question that arises in the background of the abovesaid facts is whether OP  offered possession to the complainant vide its letter dated 05.11.2018 as contended by it.  On the other hand complainant contended that the letter dated 05.11.2008 is a mere concoction which never saw the light of the day. It was never filed alongwith the written version.  Perusal of the written version shows that no copy of the alleged letter dated 05.11.2008 was filed alongwith the written version.  OP stated in Para VI of the preliminary objections that he had the documents in support of the letter dated 05.11.2008.  The same were filed as Annexure R-VI.  These are photocopies of some courier receipts.  Where was the difficulty in filing the copy of the letter dated 05.11.2008 while filing written version?  Courier receipts both dated 05.11.2008 lead us to nowhere.  Be that as it may, OP filed copy of the alleged letter dated 05.11.2008 during the course of the final arguments.  Relevant portion of the letter runs as under:

 

“it gives us Immense pleasure to inform you that plot Id K-218 is ready for possession.We have already given possession in A,B,C block and we are strongly moving towards shaping dreams into Reality.

 

We assure you that TDI city the self-sufficing unified township, will be one of its kind as it had been particularly gestated keeping in view most eminent touchstones in the world to furnish prime living experience to you and your family.

 

Detailed statement of Accounts is attached herewith giving details of amount due and payable. You are requested to make the due payments within 30 days from the date of this letter to avoid any further interest penalty.”

 

 

 

A careful perusal of the abovesaid letter shows that the OP simply stated that plot no. IDK-218 was ready for possession. Complainant was not called upon to come on a particular date and receive possession.No specific outstanding amount was demanded.OP also failed to place on record the statement of accounts allegedly sent alongwith the letter dated 05.11.2008.

 

 

11. OP has failed to place on record any completion certificate or occupancy certificate from the authorities in respect of the plot in question or for the piece of developed land having in it, plot in question.  OP contended that it issued letters of cancellations referred to above.  Before offering possession vide alleged letter dated 05.11.2008, OP did not recall the said letters of cancellation.  No fresh circumstances for offering possession were put forth.  Clearly the letter dated 05.11.2008 is a forged and fabricated document.  Present complaint was filed by the complainant on 09.12.2011.  Hon’ble National Commission as referred to above had appointed a Local Commissioner to find out the status of the area in question.  Relevant portion of the Local Commissioner’s report is reproduced below:

 

1.  

 

10.  

 

12. Local Commissioner visited the site on 31.01.2016 i.e. about 8 years after the filing of the present complaint.  Even on that date, the plot remained undeveloped.  It further lends support to the complainant’s contention that the letter dated 05.11.2008 is a forged and fabricated document.  OP at least should have filed photographs to show that the plot in question stood developed or some constructions were raised on other plots in the vicinity. 

 

13. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the is OP guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ as it failed to deliver possession of developed plot in a span of 13 years.  OPs are, therefore, directed to pay to the complainants as under:

 

1. OP shall refund the amount of Rs.12,73,375/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of its realization. 
2. OP shall pay to the complainants compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs for causing inconvenience, harassment, sadness, frustration and mental agony. 
3. OP shall pay to the complainants litigations charges to the tune of Rs.1 lakhs.

 

14. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the OP to the complainants within a period of 30 days from today failing which these shall carry interest @24% per annum. 
    Complaint is accordingly disposed of. File be consigned to Records.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

13.