Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/118

AMITABH NANGIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision: 04.05.2017

Complaint Case No. 118/2012

In the matter of:

Sh. Amitabh Nangia

S/o Late Sh. C B Nangia

R/o C-15/12, ArjunNarg

DLF City Phase I

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 allured by an advertisement got booked a plot measuring 500 sq. yards in one of the projects of M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (in short the ‘OP’) known as TDI CITY Kundli,Sonepat, Haryana. Complainant submitted that the OP had pre-launched the scheme before acquiring the land. Initially an amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 20.01.2005. Plot bearing no. D-D4/6 was allotted to the complainant vide orders dated 02.06.2005. Total sale consideration of the plot was Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Seven Lacs only) inclusive of external development charges @ Rs. 650/- per sq. yards. The complainant submitted that he paid in all an amount of Rs. 24,62,500/- (Rs. Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) uptil 01.08.2006. The balance amount of Rs. 41,266/- was outstanding. 10% of the sale consideration was to be paid to the OP at the time of execution of the sale deed.
2.         Complainant submitted that he visited the site in question in the summer of 2006 and came to know that a commercial structure in the name of RADEO DRIVE MALL had been raised thereon. Forredressal of his grievance, complainant wrote letters dated 11.01.2007, 27.02.2007 and 01.08.2007 requesting the OP to allot him an alternative plot. OP kept on dilly-dallying. Finally the OP vide its letter dated 14.08.2008 allotted the alternative plot bearing no. B-B-47/12 in lieu of the earlier plot no. D4/6. Consequently, a plot buyer’s agreement dated nil was executed in August 2008. Grievance of the complainant is that despite the fact that he had paid about 99% of the total sale consideration, OP never offered him possession of any plot. Complainant has prayed for directions against the OPs for handing him over the plot no. B-B-47/12 measuring 500 sq. yards. Besides claiming interest @ 24% on the amount withheld by him, damages to the tune of Rs. 86,25,000/- have also been prayed for.
3.         OP has admitted the allotment of plot no. D-D4/6 measuring 500 sq. yards in favour of the complainant and having executed the plot buyer’s agreement dated 14 August 2008. OP also admitted having received an amount of Rs. 24,62,500/- from the complainant.
4.         Sole defence raised by the OP is that the complainant is an investor who got the booking done with an ulterior motive. OP thus contended that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of the section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Next submission made by the OP is that he obtained necessary consent and permission of the development of the project in 1000 acres. OP submitted that the development of his project known as TDI City KundliSonepat is in full swing. It may be mentioned here that during the course of arguments AR of the OP Sh. RiteshVijhaniconceded that even the alternative plot bearing no. B-47/12 was not ready for possession. Perusal of the written version filed by the OP shows that the OP took a plea that EDC charges of Rs. 5,22,918/- have not been paid by the OP. Be that as it may, OP has failed to place on record any document to show that the plot in question or any other plot was ever offered to the complainant. Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission have held in a catena of authorities that the builders out its sheer greed start receiving money from the gullible buyers and do not invest money in the projects, the rosy pictures of which were shown to the buyers. It is a matter of common knowledge that the prices of the real estate have sky-rocketed during the last few years. It was in these circumstances, that the Parliament enacted Real Estate (Regulations and Development) Act 2016. Complainant in any case is not able to buy a similar plot for the amount deposited by him with the OP. It is a clear case of ‘unfair trade practice’.OP is, therefore, directed to pay to the complainant as under:

1. to refund the amount of Rs. 24,62,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till the dtae of its realization.

 

The abovesaid amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within a period of sixty days from today failing which it shall carry interest @ 24% p.a. No order as to compensation and litigation charges for the reason that the rate of interest has taken care of the same.

5.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)