Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/897

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MONICA - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision: 19.08.2016

First Appeal No. 897/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 26.03.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 378/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Ist Floor, VikasBhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110001)

In the matter of:

TDI Infrastructure Ltd.

9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001

Through its Authorised Representative

Mr.ParasArora                                                .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms. Monica Aggarwal

R/o 24, Uday Park

New Delhi-110049

 

Mr.V.K.Goel

R/o 24, Uday Park

New Delhi-110049                                            ..........Respondents

                                                                             

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 17.07.2012 and 05.09.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum VI VikasBhawan Delhi. Before proceedings further, it may be mentioned here that in the same complaint Ld. District Forum VI passed a 3^rd order dated 26.03.2013. All the three orders i.e. dated 17.07.2012, 05.09.2012 and operational portion of order dated 26.03.2013 are reproduced below:

 

Orders dated 17.07.2012

 

“We have considered the complaint of deficiency on the part of OP, in not giving possession of flat, allegedly transferred in the name of complainant, from the erstwhile registration charging Rs. 10,000/-. The OP in 2010, showed some photographs and stated that flat of complainant in one of the tower was reaching completion. We direct OP to furnish the present stage of construction, with a photograph identifying the flat of complainant, if progress has been made. This be done by 16^th August 2012. If this is not shown, OP will return the whole money of Rs. 7.10 lakhs to complainant with interest @ 10% (ten percent) from date of demand of refund his payment before 31.08.2012. The compensation will be decided on 5^th September, 2012.”

 

Orders dated 05.09.2012

 

“Present both the Counsels. It has been decided that OP will pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to the Complainant by separate order.”

 

Orders dated 26.03.2013

 

“In the given circumstances, we hold OP guilty of deficiency and direct OP to return the sum of Rs. 7,10,000/- with interest @ 10% from date of deposit. We also award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges.”

 

2.      In brief, the complainant purchased a flat from M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (in short the OP). Initially the flat in question was booked by one Mrs.ChanchalChadha in the year 2006.Mrs.ChanchalChadhahad paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the OP on 20.02.2006. Subsequently Mrs.ChanchalChadha had got transferred the said flat in the names of Sh. Sanjay Chadha and Sh. PradeepChadha on 11.12.2006. Finally the flat was transferred in the name of the complainant Ms. Monica after paying Rs. 7,00,000/- and transfer charges of Rs. 10,000/-. OP did not complete the construction work till the filing of the complaint i.e. uptil 20.03.2010. Sole defence raised by the OP is that most of its customers were interested in earning profits they were not in need of a house.
3.      In the present appeal which is against the orders dated 17.07.2012 and 05.09.2012, the appellant submitted that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant was not a consumer in term of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. No case of deficiency of service was made out. Complainant had also failed to produce any document in support of his averments.
4.      Present appeal was filed on 04.10.2012. Despite a large number of opportunities, Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not appear to address arguments. Adjournments have been sought on one or the other pretext. Today again a proxy counsel Sh. Shashank Kumar has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Vide order dated 23.02.2016 last opportunity was granted to the appellant for addressing arguments.
5.      Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the final order in the complaint is dated 26.03.2013 which is not impugned by the appellant herein. After the said orders, orders dated 17.07.2012 and 05.09.2012 stand merged in the said orders. Be that as it may, contention of the appellant that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ is of no avail for the reason that no materialhas been placed on record to show that the complainant is simply an investor. It is not disputed by the appellant that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 7,10,000/- with the appellant herein. It is also not the case of the appellant that on the date of filing of the complaint he had completed the construction of the flat in question. Clearly it is a case of “deficiency in service”. Appeal therefore is dismissed, being devoid of merits.
6.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
7.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

6.