Haryana

StateCommission

A/1073/2015

KAMALA KANATA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

VISHAL NEHRA

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1073 of 2015

Date of Institution:      16.12.2015

Date of Decision :       03.03.2016

 

Smt. Kamal Kanta wife of Sh. Surender Saluja, resident of House No.1243, Sector 14, Sonepat, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      TDI Infrastructure (P) Limited, through its Proprietor D.N. Taneja, 10, Saheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Goal Market, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd, G-7, Ground Floor, Connaught Circus, Opposite Madras Hotel, Block, New Delhi through its Proprietor D.N. Taneja.

 

3.      TDI Infrastructure (P) Ltd, TDI Building, GT Road, Kundli, District Sonepat, through its Proprietor D.N. Taneja.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Vishal Nehra, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Aman Sharma, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated November 24^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by her was allowed.   Respondents were directed to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization, to the complainant.    

2.      Kamal Kanta-complainant booked four bedroom flat with the respondents.  She paid Rs.12,40,104/- to the respondents. The respondents failed to deliver the possession of flat to the complainant.  She requested the respondents to refund the deposited amount but they did not pay any heed.

3.      The respondents in their reply pleaded that they have fully developed the site and delivered the physical possession of the flats to various applicants.  The complainant herself did not pursue her application despite repeated calls and letters.

4.      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.

5.      Submission being convincing, this Commission feels that the impugned order needs to be modified.  Hence, 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.

6.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 03.03.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK