Haryana

StateCommission

A/1129/2017

RAJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

RAVI SHANKAR GARG

14 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1129 of 2017

Date of Institution:      20.09.2017

Date of Decision :       14.05.2018

 

Raj Kumar son of late Sh. J.K. Lal, resident of House No.541, Faiz Bazar, Sonepat, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited, (Formerly M/s Intime Promoters (P) Ltd.) 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001

Also At

10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi

Also at

Site Office situated at Kingsbury in TDI City, NH-1, G.T. Road, Kundli, Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

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

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                  

Argued by:          Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Bhupender Singh, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 17^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby TDI Infrastructure Limited-opposite party was directed to pay Rs.5,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, June 06^th, 2016 till realization.      

2.      The complainant booked a flat with the respondents.  He paid Rs.5,50,000/- to the respondents. The respondents did not allot any flat to the complainant.  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, 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. The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

 

Announced 14.05.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK