Delhi

StateCommission

A/383/2015

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR CHABBRA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments:09.07.2018

Date of Decision:11.07.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.383/2015

 

In the matter of:

 

M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.,

Through its authorised representative,

9-Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                 .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Vinod Kumar Chabbra,

S/o. Late Shri K.L. Chabbra,

R/o. 5/104, Ground Floor,

Subhash Nagar,

New Delhi-110027.……….Respondent No.1

 

2. Raj Kumar Bathla,

S/o. Late ShriGopalDass,

R/o. 6/1, Ground Floor,

Subhash Nagar,

New Delhi-110027.……….Respondent No.2

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                                                                                  Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                                                                  Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Judgement

 

            This order will dispose of appeal against order dated 02.09.2015 passed by District Forum (New Delhi) in CC No.214/2013 vide which the complaint was allowed and OP/ appellant was directed to refund Rs.3 lakhs with interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation.  Besides that compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental agony, inconvenience including cost of litigation was also allowed.

            The facts lie in a narrow compass. The respondent/ complainant herein  deposited Rs.3 lakhs as advance registration in EspaniaRoyale Floor (KRF) at Kamaspur, Sonepat, Haryana. On 23.05.2012 appellant sent demand letter for Rs.4,40,394/- towards installment at the time of allotment but no allotment was done. Complainant paid the said amount by cheque with the condition that cheque should be en-cashed only on allotment. The appellant presented the cheque without allotting any unit, which was got dishonoured. Appellant cancelled booking on 19.07.2012.

            In WS the appellant admitted the booking  and payment of advance registration money. According to respondent should have adhered strictly to terms and conditions. The construction payment plan provided that 15% was to be paid at the time of registration, 15% was to be paid at the time of allotment and remaining amount at different stages mentioned therein.

            The District Forum found that there was no mention of allotment or number of any unit in the letter dated 23.05.2012. Thus appellant failed to fulfil its own  terms. That being so the respondent was not expected to fulfil the terms and conditions of agreement and continue making the payment without allotment, while being in dark about status of the project. Hence the impugned order was passed.

            In appeal the contention of the appellant is that respondents registered for allotment of residential floor with the expectation to book profit by selling the same in the open market at premium  as at the relevant time  the real estate market in India was booming. Due to the sudden and major slump in the real estate market respondent decided not to make any payment toward development and construction of the project. As a result of the failure of defaultering customers like respondents, there were several hindrances which were  created in the construction and development of the project. Thus it was not the appellant but the respondents who are to be blamed. The respondents are unrelated to each other and are residents of Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. It is incomprehensible as to why the respondents would book a residential floor together at Sonepat, Haryana. Thus they cannot said to be consumer. The appellant was required to make allotment only after the due payment was received. The appellant issued reminder letter dated 12.06.2012, 27.06.2012 calling upon the respondents to make payment. The appellant was compelled o cancel the registration vide letter dated 19.07.2012.

            We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. In para-14 of the appeal the appellant himself has mentioned that letter dated 23.05.2012 simply offered allotment. This clearly shows that no allotment was made by that time. Moreover the tenor of the letter shows that no number of the unit  was mentioned as to which unit was allotted. In the absence of number to identify unit, it cannot be said that any allotment had been done.

            Agreement requiring payment at the time of allotment means that allotment and payment have to be simultaneous. It cannot be said that first the respondent should have made payment and only then the appellant was expected to allot. In that event it would amount to re-writing the agreement to say that payment was to be made before allotment.

            The counsel for the respondent rightly submitted that despite all hurry made by the appellant in demanding payment due at the time of allotment, the respondent sent the cheque but with the condition that  it should be presented after making the allotment. Receipt of cheque is not disputed by the appellant. The appellant deposited the cheque in its bank account for collection which was dishonoured. The conduct of the respondents in sending the cheque shows theirbonafide.

            After all the appellant was not going to deliver the possession of the unit. By simply allotting a particular number of unit would not have caused any loss to the appellant. It should have allotted the unit first and then deposited the cheque.

            We do not find any merit in the plea of the appellant that two un-related persons cannot make a single booking. Similarly is the fate of the plea that persons living in Subhash Nagar, New Delhi would not book unit in Sonipat, Haryana. It is matter of common knowledge that people are willing to shift from Delhi to Green Area which is free from pollution. Sonipat is nearest to Delhi and one desires to breath in fresh air.

            Action of appellant in cancelling the booking is unfair.  It cannot be allowed to usurp the amount.

            The only relief which appellant can get is that rate of interest awarded by the District Forum can be reduced from 12% to 9% and compensation can be dispensed with. Accordingly the appellant is accepted in part, impugned order is modified to the effect that appellant will refund Rs.3 lakhs to the respondents alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy of the orderbe sent to District Forum for information.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)(O.P. GUPTA)MEMBER                                            MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

nk