Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/368

URAVASHI NANGIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

                                                   Date of Decision: 21.11.2017

 

Complaint Case No. 368/2011

 

In the matter of:

 

Ms. UrvashiNangia

D/o Sh. Amitabh Nangia

R/o C-15/12, ArjunMarg

DLF City Phase-1

Gurgaon, Haryana-122002                                ........Complainant

Versus

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. 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

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the TDI Infrastructure (in short the OP) submitting that her predecessor-in-interest Ms. SanjeetaGoel had booked a residential plotmeasuring 500 sq. yards in the project called TDI City KundliSonepat, Haryana. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 7,75,000/- to Ms. SanjeetaGoel the original allottee and the plot in question was transferred by the OP in the name of the complainant. Complainant was allotted the plot bearing no. L-569. She was given a customer ID No. KR2-3369. On 18.08.2007 a plot buyers’ agreement was entered into between the parties. The total sale consideration of the plot was Rs. 42,70,000/- inclusive of EDC and PLC.
2.         OP gave assurance to the complainant to the effect that all sanctions/permissions from the govt. authorities have been obtained.
3.         Grievance of the complainant is that upon her visits to the site she found no development. Complainant further submitted that despite not carrying out his part of the obligation, OP raised illegal demand of Rs. 22,30,043/-. Complainant had paid in all an amount of Rs. 19,61,250/-.
4.         In respect of her claim, complainant submitted that the Vice President (marketing) of the OP in a meeting held on 20.08.2007 assured the complainant’s father that the OP would waive off interest on the outstanding amount in respect of the plots including the plot in question. Complainant has placed on record the minutes of the said meeting. Next submission of the complainant is that she wrote reminders to the OP dated 03.10.2007, 23.12.2007 and 03.01.2008. No steps for development of the site had been taken even thereafter. Instead of going aheadwith the development of the site, complainant cancelled the plot in question on 30.01.2009. Upon this, complainant’s father wrote a letter dated 14.02.2009 to the OP regarding illegal cancellation of the plot in question. Complainant further submitted that on her visit to the site in February 2010, she found that except for putting up of a signboard no, developmental activity had taken place. Even the roads leading to the site were the kuchha roads. Reach to the site was very difficult. With the aforesaid spectrum of facts, complainant has prayed for directions to the OP for withdrawal of the letter of cancellation dated 30.01.2009. Complainant has also prayed for interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 19,61,250/- deposited by her. Directions for handing over the possession of the plot have also been sought for.
5.         Defence raised by the OP is that the complainant concealed the material information that she was not the original allottee of the plot. She purchased it from one Ms. SanjeetaGoel who had registered herself for allotment. OP however admitted that the plot bearing no. L-569 in its project TDI City Kondli,Sonepat was later on transferred in the name of the complainant. Main defence raised by the OP is that the complainant was a defaulter in paying the installments due, on a number of occasions.
6.         Next submission of the OP is that the complainant is a speculator and not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainant wanted to have some gain but due to a sudden and sharp decline in the real estate market, the global economic meltdown, the complainant failed to book the expected gains and as such defaulted in making due payments. She was interested in investment. Now again a relative economic stability came to the real estate market. Complainant started pursuing her complaint it with a renewed vigour.
7.         OP submitted that the complainant had not fulfilled her part of obligation. She was in arrears of the balance of the payment of Rs. 22,39,043/-. It was for this reason that a letter of cancellation dated 30.09.2009 was sent to her.
8.         Complainant placed on record rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Parties filed evidence. Written arguments too have also been placed on record.
9.         OP has admitted having received an amount of Rs. 19,61,250/- from the complainant. Present complaint was filed on 17.11.2011. OP filed its written version on 27.07.2012. Even in its written version, OP stated that the development at the site was in full swing. In other words, the development had not been completed and the plot was not ready for being handed over. Written arguments have been filed by the OP on 25.09.2014.Even in its written arguments, it was not the case of the OP that the development at the site had been completed.
10. Complainant stopped making further payments to the OP when she found no progress at the site. She was justified in not making further payments as the OP even till date has not completed the developmental work. Perusal of the letter of cancellation dated 30.01.2009 shows that the OP conveyed to the complainant that it had forfeited the amount of Rs. 8,07,000/- (20% of the total cost of the plot) towards earnest money. The proposition is unconscionable even if it is signed by the complainant. The agreement is in a fine print and the buyers sign such agreements on dotted lines.
11. As discussed above the OP has failed to complete the developmental work at the site. Clearly he is not able to handover the plot to the complainant. OP has been ‘deficient in service’ and has indulged in ‘unfair trade practice’ by not completing the developmental work in a span of 11 years.
12. Before parting it may be mentioned here that the OP moved an application dated 07.05.2017 for clubbing the present complaint with two other complaints bearing nos. CC/118/2012 titled as Amitabh Nangia v. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and CC/367/2011 titled as UdeekshaNangia v. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that both the said matters have already been disposed of by this Commission vide orders dated 25.04.2017 and 04.05.2017 respectively. Since the matters sought to be connected have already been disposed of, present application has become infructuous. The same is hence dismissed.
13. In the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, OP is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.19,61,250/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till the date of its realization. OP also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for causing harassment, inconvenience, frustration, sadness and mental agony to the complainant. Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
14. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be sent to Records.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)