Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/321/2021

Gurbaz Singh, IFS (Retd) - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI Infratech Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/321/2021
Date of Institution	:	27.4.2021
Date of Decision	:	20/06/2024

 

Gurbaz Singh. IFS (Retd), Son of Sajjan Singh, Resident of H.No. 4380, Block E. Sector-66B, Aerocity, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

Complainant

Versus

 

1.   TDI Infratech Ltd., SCO No. 51 52, Sector 118. Chandigarh-Kharar Road, TDI City. Mohali (Punjab) through its Chairman/MD/Director Regional Office: TDi Mall, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

2.   Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.. 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg. New Delhi 110001, through its Chairman/MD/Director.

3. TDI City. Sector-117, Mohali. Kharar Road, Punjab through its Chairman/MD/Director 140307.

 

Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anuj Arora, Advocate for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for OPs.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased a plot measuring 250 Sq. yds in the project of the OPs through resale from  Mr. Puneet Shukla the original allottee and as such the complainant stepped in the shoes of Mr. Puneet Shukla and paid all the installments as well in time as per demand. As per payment plan the balance dues towards the complainant was Rs.2,06,250/-. As per payment details issued by the OPs as on 16.1.2020 the complainant paid Rs.14,12,500/- however, later on the OPs issued a letter to the complainant informing him that they have only received Rs.13,87,500/- . Vide letter dated 31.8.2013 the OP admitted that the total cost of the plot is Rs.20,37,500/-  including basic cost+EDC+PLC and the balance was shown as Rs.4,87,500/- . It is alleged that whenever the complainant approached the OPs for possession of the plot they shown their inability to give the possession.   The Ops vide letter Annexure Exhibit C-13 asked the complainant to take allotment of the plot and when the complainant  approached OP he was informed that OP has already allotted the good location plot to various buyers and shown plot to the complainant near the sewerage drain. It is alleged that the OPs are asked the complainant to pay enhanced and escalated price of Rs.21,86,000/- despite the fact that earlier the Ops vide lette dated 21.8.2013 asked the complainant to pay Rs.4,87,500/-.It is alleged that despite receiving huge amount from the complainant the Ops have failed to delivery possession till date.  Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant purchased the plot from Sh. Puneet Shukla and at the time of transfer the complainant was well aware of the situation and he still preferred to go ahead with the transfer  inheriting all the  uncertaintities associated with the said plot with the conscious and voluntary decision. The answering OP’s has no role in the subsequent transfer of plots. After the intial allotment the OPs are just facilitator for the transfer and the complainant chose to take the said plot without any interference  or any kind of persuasion from the answer OPs.  The complainant vide letter dated 10.12.2014 called for allotment of plot but the complainant himself is a defaulter and has never come forward to take the allotment of the plot in question. It is alleged that the complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 10.12.2014 when the complainant was asked to take allotment of the plot in question.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. From the record, it is observed that the complainant was admittedly allotted the plot in question by the OPs, after being transferred from the previous owner.  The perusal of the record reveals that the OPs admitted to have already received amount as mentioned in the complaint in respect of the plot in question from the complainant including its previous owners and only then transferred the plot in question, but despite of all that the OPs still has not provided the possession of the allotted plot to the complainants.  Thus it is clear that the OPs have failed to fulfill its legal/contractual obligation by offering possession of the originally allotted plot/unit to the complainant, having basic amenities, within the stipulated time or within a reasonable time.
7. It is settled law by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed:

“It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers.

8.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed:-

    “The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself. By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

9.     Hence, the act of the OP Company to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not giving the confirm date of handing over possession of the plot in question certainly proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. 
10.  In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. Vs.  Union of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it is held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  Similar principle of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766), while holding as under:-

“…….We would reiterate that the statutory Boards and Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer forum in case of deficiency of services as has already been decided in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.[1]; Karnataka Industrial Areas and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.[2]. This Court in Narne Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [3] referred to its earlier decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [4] and duly discussed the wide connotation of the terms “consumer” and “service” under the consumer protection laws and reiterated the observation of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra) which is provided hereunder :

“5. In the context of the housing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body and whether such activity tantamounts to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court observed: (LDA case, SCC pp. 256- 57, para 6):

“…when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and the other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act….”

11.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed: -
12. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

 

13.  In our opinion, the OPs have accepted the money, but failed to honour the commitment/promise made with complainants by delivering the possession of the allotted plot despite receipt of major portion of the cost.  Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainants, but also caused them immense harassment & mental agony.  
14. Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.1 Company is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties
15. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to handover possession of the plot/unit in question to the complainant after receiving balance amount.
2. to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

16.      This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above shall carry interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of stipulated period of 45 days, till realisation, apart from compliance of directions at Sr. No.(i) & (iii) above.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
18.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
20/6/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member