Haryana

StateCommission

A/562/2018

DEEPAK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SUSHEEL GAUTAM

11 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      562 of 2018

Date of Institution:      02.05.2018

Date of Decision :       11.09.2018

 

Deepak Kumar son of Jasmer Singh, resident of House No.31, Subhash Colony, Panipat.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      TDI Infrastructure Limited, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

 

2.      TDI Infrastructure Limited, Customer Care Centre, TDI House, G-7, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001.

 

3.      TDI Infrastructure Limited, Kundli, near Delhi Border, District Sonepat.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                  

Argued by:          Shri Susheel Gautam, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Nihal Singh, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated March 06^th, 2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby TDI Infrastructure Limited-opposite party was directed to refund Rs.9,90,527/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, February 16^th, 2018 till realization to Deepak Kumar-complainant.      

2.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum alleging that initially one Paramjeet booked an apartment with the respondents.  The complainant purchased the said apartment from Paramjeet.  He paid Rs.9,90,527/- to the respondents. The respondents failed to complete the construction of the apartment.  He requested the respondents to refund the deposited amount but they did not pay any heed.

3.      The only plea raised by learned counsel for the complainant is that the amount deposited by the complainant be refunded from the date of its respective deposits and not from the date of filing of complaint.

4.      Submission being convincing, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the respondents are directed to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till its realization. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

 

Announced 11.09.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK