Delhi

StateCommission

CC/973/2016

SMT. AJITA BISHNOI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

D P KAUSHIK

16 Sep 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :16.09.2019

Date of Decision :23.09.2019

COMPLAINT NO 973/2016

In the matter of:

 

1.         Mrs. Ajita Bishnoi

            W/O Mr. Tejasvi Bishnoi

            Resident of A-1/245. IInd Floor,

            Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.

 

2.         Mr. Tejasvi Bishnoi

            Resident of A-1/245. IInd Floor,

            Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.

 

 

                                                            ………Complainant

Versus

           

            TDI Infrastructre Pvt. Ltd.

            Registered office: 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001                                                                                   

     ……..Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

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

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

 

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The case of the complainants is that they applied for allotment of residential flat measuring 1100 sq. ft. in TDI City, Kundali, Sonipat initial amount of Rs. 1,09,087/-was paid by cheque dated 11.09.2005. OP allotted flat No. T1-804 vide letter dated 20.02.2007. Op assured to hand over possession within 03 years. Complainants kept on depositing instalments towards purchase price of the flat. In 2010 official of OP telephonically called complainant-2 and informed that OP had abandoned construction of tower T-1. He also informed that Op had launched another residential scheme known as Tuscan Heights in the same vicinity which was better than tower T-1. He assured to transfer the amount to new scheme but without any interest. Complainant-2 came to Delhi and asked OP to refund the money, OP refused to do so. Complainants had no option to accept the offer of OP.
2. The New project was assured to be completed within 03 years. Fresh customer Id namely KTH-10225, was allotted.
3. OP demanded Rs. 3,50,000/- as booking amount of the flat in Tuscan Heights. Allotment was shown to have been made in December, 2010 but it was done in year 2011. Complainants signed fresh buyers agreement on 24.10.2011. OP further demanded Rs. 3,74,680/- towards instalment which was paid by 03 cheques all dated 02.01.2012. The complainants have paid Rs. 14,63,180/- in all. They did not hear anything from OP till June, 2014. Complainant-2 was shocked to see that there was no progress, no construction had started. The OP offered another scheme which frustrated complainant-2. There was heated arguments. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 14,63,180/- with interest @ 24% p.a, Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation for frustration, harassment, inconveniences, mental agony and Rs. 2,00,000/- litigation expenses.
4. OP filed written statement making preliminary submission that complainant is frivolous that same is based on statement contrary to facts of the case. The complainant had failed to adhere to the payment schedule and other terms of the agreement executed in 2011. OP had always complied with terms of the agreement. Construction of the project had always been in accordance with payment schedule. This Commission does have jurisdiction due to arbitration clause. Clause 53 of the agreement binds purchaser to pay from time to time amount which he is liable to pay under the agreement. The complainant did not make any payment after 2012. The OP reserved its right to forfeit the earnest money (20% of basic sale price in clause 13 & 43 of the agreement). Complainant has not deposited even 50 per cent of the sale consideration. Complainant is speculative investor who invested in property at a time when the real estate industry was ripe. After degradation of Real Estate Industries due to global economic downfall, complainants deliberately chose not to take necessary steps to come forward to make good the payments in timely manner.
5. The complainants are resident of Delhi whereas booked property is in Haryana. The same shows that complainant had intention of purchasing the property for investment purpose. Complaint does not disclose any deficiency. This Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction as amount deposited by complainant is short of Rs. 20,00,000/-. This Commission has no territorial jurisdiction as the property is not in Delhi.
6. On merits the OP repeated the same defence.
7. The complainant filed rejoinder and affidavit of complainant-2 in evidence.
8. As compared to which Op has filed affidavit of unnamed AR in evidence.
9. The complainant has filed written arguments.
10. OP has failed to file written arguments and its right to file written arguments has been closed vide order dated 16.09.2019.
11. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments. Objection of the arbitration Act has already been rejected vide order dated 27.07.2017. The objection of territorial jurisdiction is rejected as OP has its registered office in Delhi. Objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction has no merits as the complainant has sought interest @ 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Sum total exceed Rs. 20 lakh.
12. On merits the OP has not disclosed any substantial defence. It has not pleaded or filed copy of any demand letter or reminder.
13. Thus, complainant could not said to be defaulter and the plea of forfeiture goes.
14. Regarding rate of interest it is sufficient to mention that clause 7 of the buyers agreement dated 24.10.2011 filed by complainants themselves shows that they were entitled to simple interest @9% p.a.. In view of the above discussion the OP is directed to refund Rs. 14,63,180/- with agreed interest @ 9% p.a. from the dates of respective payments till date of refund.
15. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs.
16. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)