Haryana

StateCommission

CC/329/2017

SANJAY KUMAR GAHLAWAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

RAJNIKANT UPADHYAY

20 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.329 of 2017

                                                       Date of Institution: 25.05.2017                            Date of Decision: 20.07.2017

 

Sanjay Kumar Gahlawat age 45 years S/o Sh.Ramphal Gahlawat R/o H.No.51, Housing Board Colony, Sector-23, Sonepat.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, Branch Office at Tuscan City, Kundli Road Sonipat, Haryana through its Director/ Authorised signatory.

          …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Rajnikant Upadhyay, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

                   It is alleged by complainant that he executed an independent floor Buyer’s agreement with O.P. on 24.05.2014 qua unit No.T-42 duplex situated on 4^th floor in Tuscan City Kundli, Distt.Sonepat for consideration of Rs.32,50,003.21.  The payment of Rs.16,77,870/- was paid by him to the first allottee of the unit.  Transfer certificate was issued in his favour.  O.P. promised to give possession within two years in all respects, but, no construction is raised at site till now. O.P. be directed to refund Rs.16,77,870/- alongwith interest @ 24 % besides Rs.five lacs as compensation for harassment & mental agony, Rs.five lacs towards rent money and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Arguments heard. File perused.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that he purchased this unit from first allottee and paid Rs.16,77,870/- to him.  O.P. has not raised  any construction and be directed to refund the amount as mentioned above.

4.                          This argument is of no avail.  The counsel for the complainant has failed to show date by which possession was to be delivered. When no such date has expired how it can be presumed that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.  No cause of action has accrued as yet.

5.                          In view of above discussion, it is clear that complaint is pre-mature and is not maintainable at this stage and is hereby dismissed as such.  However, complainant will be at liberty to file fresh complaint as and when cause of action accrues. 

July, 20, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.