Haryana

Sonipat

461/2013

SATYENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN RANGA

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.461 of 2013

                                Instituted on:11.11.2013

                                Date of order:10.08.2015

 

Satyender Singh Rawat son of Sh. Tota Ram Rawat, r/o H.No.K-35, Gandhi Nagar Colony, Gwalior(MP).

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Corporate office at UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-01 through its Chief Managing Director.

2.TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office at 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.

3.TDI City Kundli, Main NH-1, Kundli, Distt. Sonepat through its Manager.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Ranga, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Virender Tyagi Adv. for respondents.

          

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has booked a residential flat 1000-1100 sq. feet in the present and future project at TDI Kundli with Customer ID no.KFL-11860 and deposited the amount of Rs.10,38,306/- from time to time with the respondents.    Vide letter dated 3.6.2008 the respondents intimated the complainant regarding allotment of residential flat no.G6-0104 at TDI City Kundli, Sonepat.  But the complainant was shocked to see that no construction or development work has been done at the allotted site, whereas the complainant was always ready and willing to pay the amount of installment as per agreement.  The complainant approached the respondents time and again with the request to issue the allotment letter/possession letter regarding the flat but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have denied the fact that they did not allot any flat to the complainant or no construction/development work has been done at the site. The complainant was allotted the flat no.G6-0104 at TDI City Kundli, distt. Sonepat vide letter dated 3.6.2008.  But due to some unavoidable circumstances the construction of the said tower got delayed. The respondents have issued a letter dated 6.7.2011 offering alternative flat.  In the said letter, it was also conveyed to the complainant that the possession of A-block had been given by that time. The respondents have not caused any mental agony or harassment to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief from the respondents.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, the complainant has sought the relief to direct the respondents either to issue the allotment/possession letter in respect of the flat booked or to refund the amount of Rs.10,38,306/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant was allotted the flat no.G6-0104 at TDI City Kundli, distt. Sonepat vide letter dated 3.6.2008.  But due to some unavoidable circumstances the construction of the said tower got delayed. The respondents have issued a letter dated 6.7.2011 offering alternative flat.  In the said letter, it was also conveyed to the complainant that the possession of A-block had been given by that time. The respondents have not caused any mental agony or harassment to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In the present case, the respondents have admitted that due to some unavoidable circumstances the construction of the said tower got delayed. On the contrary, the respondents were utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without providing him any services and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In the present case, as per the complainant, he has deposited Rs.10,38,306/- with the respondents and in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.10,38,306/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousands) for deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:10.08.2015