BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1.      Inderpaul Singh, s/o Late S.Kartar Singh, r/o # 2329, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

2.      Mrs. Kanwaljit Kaur, w/o Sh. Inderpaul Singh, r/o # 2329, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainants

                           V E R S U S

1.      TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., Regioinal Office, SCO No. 1098-1099, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

2.      TANEJA DEVELOPERS, & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., Regd. Office 9, Kasthurba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Through its authorized signatory.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. H.S. Parwana, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Pradeep Kapoor, Adv. for OPs.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant in response to the advertisement of the OP, applied for registration of allotment of a residential plot of size 200 sq.yds. in future township project at Belongi, Mohali on 10.09.2008, vide application Annexure C-1. Alongwith the application, he attached a cheque for Rs.7,25,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Sector 35B, Chandigarh.  After that the OPs offered the complainant a residential plot in township TDI City vide their communication dated 30.10.2008. On 24.01.2009 the OP called upon the complainant to remit the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- in favour of Taneja Developing and Infrastructure Ltd, towards 25% sales consideration.  Thereafter the OP vide letter dated 22.05.2009 called him to remit Rs.2,15,000/-, towards 70% of the sale consideration and 100% of tentative E.D.C.A.. After that the complainant visited the site of TDI City and found that the land on which the plots were to be located had not been acquired by OP as yet.  It was also found that there were no roads to the site and no sewerage material was there at site. The complainant wrote a detailed letter to the OP on 28.05.2009 regarding the above facts. But instead of replying the queries of the complainant the OP vide letter dated 4.08.2009 had cancelled the registration of the plot.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that the alleged booking of the plot was done by OP-2, hence OP-1 had no concern with the booking of the plot or the project, as all the communications were addressed to OP-2. They submitted that the complainant had itself mentioned that the investment was in future scheme and in the present case the letter regarding provisional allotment was duly issued to the complainant on 30.10.2008.  They had sent the letter to deposit a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- to get priority in allotment. The complainant opted a down payment plan, according to which he was to pay 25% at time of booking, 25% at the time of offer of allotment, 40% within 60 days of offer of allotment and remaining 10% was to be paid at the time of offer of possession. They denied if the complainant had ever visited the site. They submitted that they have purchased the land and had paid the dues to the government to obtain the CLU and the layout had already been approved by the competent authority. Out of these amounts the EDC charges paid was recoverable from the allottees, therefore the demand of installment was justified. They submitted that the registration was rightly cancelled by them as the complainant had not paid the balance outstanding amount. They further submitted that the complainant had filed the present complaint on the basis of the application form submitted by him, whereas no agreement/contract had been entered into between the parties, therefore there was no question of any obligation to be complied with the conditions of the application form submitted by the complainant.  They further contended that the complainant had filed this complaint for allotment of cancelled plot amounting to Rs.29,00,000/- which was more than Rs.20,00,000/-, therefore the Hon`ble Court has not pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.        The complainant filed a rejoinder controverting that the dispute was with regard to the payment of Rs.7,25,000/- which had been received by the OPs and the same has been claimed in the present complaint alongwith interest and compensation on account of mal trade practice and physical harassment.  The complainant has denied all other contentions of the OPs in his reply through rejoinder.

4.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             It is not disputed that the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- has been deposited by the complainant with the OP vide draft copy of which is Annexure C-2.  The OPs have allotted a plot of 200 square yards vide Annexure C-5. The contention of the complainant is that infact this plot has been allotted only on papers, that the OPs have not purchased any land, there is no development such as roads, sewerage or electricity poles nor the OPs have obtained the permission from the Government for change of land use and therefore the allotment vide Annexure C-5 cannot be made operative.  The OPs have disputed this contention, however they have not produced any document to suggest if they have purchased any land for this project. The site plan has been produced by the OPs but that is not authenticated by any authority. This site plan does not appear to have been submitted to the appropriate authority for sanction.  The OPs have not obtained any letter of permission from the Government for the change of land use to set up a colony.  The contention of the complainant therefore appears to be correct that the allotment of plot has been made only on papers and not actually at the spot and they have not been able to confirm as to which Khasra numbers are owned by the OPs and in which Khasra number the plot of the complainant falls. This all appears to have been done to dodge the complainant and other prospective purchasers by showing them that they have been allotted plots, when actually no plot existed at site.  Collecting money from the public on the assurance of allotting plots, when neither the land has been acquired for establishing a colony, nor any permission has been obtained, amounts to an unfair trade practice by which the OP is unjustly enriching itself.

7.             The OPs have not been able to show as to whether the plots have been developed at the site, roads and electric pipes have been laid at the spot. In the absence of these facilities, the allotment of plots through the letter alone is meaningless.

8.             It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the OP that the allotment was made by Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited i.e. OP-2 and therefore the complaint should not have been filed against OP-1.  Annexure C-3 is the letter issued by OP-1 requesting the complainant to deposit Rs.7,25,000/- in favour of OP-2. Annexure C-4 is the reminder issued by OP-1 but it has been signed by the authorized signatory of OP-2.  Annexure C-5 and C-7 contains the emblem of TDI and have been signed on behalf of OP-2.  It is therefore clear that the OP-1 and OP-2 are working in tandem and both of them are liable to repay the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- as deposited by the complainant at the asking of OP-1 in the account of OP-2.

9.             In case Satya Pal Mahendiratta Vs. H.U.D.A., IV (2205) CPJ(NC), the complainant had applied for allotment of a plot but his application was misplaced by H.U.D.A. Ultimately the OP agreed to consider the name of the complainant for allotment but the complainant was not willing for the same. It was ordered by the Hon`ble National Commission that H.U.D.A. was liable to refund the deposited amount alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost.  We accordingly direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.7,25,000/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. since the date of deposit till the payment is actually made to the complainant.  Since the OPs are adopting unfair trade practice and are thereby may be deceiving a number of prospective buyers, they should also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  The aforesaid amount alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest @12% p.a. on the entire amount from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.10.2009, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.