Haryana

StateCommission

RP/86/2016

RAJENDER SINGH NANDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRATRUCTURE - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:   86 of 2016

Date of Institution    :  17.10.2016

Date of Decision     :   11.01.2017

 

Rajender Singh Nandal s/o Sh. Udey Singh, Resident of 47, Vasundhra Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

                                      Petitioner-Complainant

Versus

 

TDI Infrastructure Limited through its Managing Director, Registered Office at Vandana Building Upper Ground Floor, 11 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               None.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Rajender Singh Nandal-Complainant is in revision against the order dated August 3^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby execution application was dismissed.

2.                After filing the revision petition, the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed, that is, 17^th November, 2016 and case was adjourned for today, that is, January 11^th, 2017. Today also, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.  In view of this, we proceed to dispose of the revision on merits after going through the case file.

3.                The complainant booked a flat with TDI Infrastructure Limited-Opposite Party/respondent. The respondent allotted flat No.V-I-201 at Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana. Complainant paid Rs.11,49,000/- to the respondent. However, construction not being raised and possession not being offered, the complainant filed complaint No.205 of 2014, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. The respondent contested complaint.

4.                  The District Forum vide order dated 18^th May, 2015 allowed complaint directing the respondent as under:-

“…However, we allow the present complaint with the directions to the respondent to refund the entire deposit amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till payment or to allot the flat No.W-4-302 to the complainant and to receive the balance amount from the complainant without interest. The respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. It is also made clear that if the flat No.W-4-302 is not available with the respondent, in that event, the respondent shall allot the flat to the complainant at the same rate and of the same measurement at some other good location.”

5.                In compliance of the orders of the District Forum, the respondent offered possession of the flat. However, the complainant insisted for alternative relief, that is, refund of the amount deposited with interest. He filed execution application before the District Forum.

6.                Notice being issued, the respondent appeared and stated that they have complied with the order of the District Forum and offered possession to the petitioner. However, the complainant insisted for refund of the amount.

7.                The District Forum after hearing the parties disposed of the execution application holding that the order of the District Forum stood complied with. Aggrieved complainant has come up in revision.

8.                A perusal of the order dated 18^th May, 2015 of which the compliance is being sought, shows that the District Forum granted relief of refund of the deposited amount along with interest or in the alternative to offer possession of the same flat which was initially allotted to the complainant. This being so, offering of possession by the opposite party/respondent was substantial compliance of the order. Thus, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the execution application.

9.                No ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum is made out. Hence, the revision petition fails. It is dismissed.

 

Announced 11.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL