Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/385/2021

Shanti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI Infra Tech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Gupta adv

08 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	385 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	22.06.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	08.01.2024

 

 

 

 

1]  Shanti Devi aged 71 years W/o Sh.Dharam Pal Sekhri,

2]  Bishamber Dass Sekhri aged 37 years S/o Sh.Dharam Pal Sekhri Both R/o H.No.430, Sector-46-A, Chandigarh,

3]  Vijay Bajaj aged 61 years W/o Sh.Parveen Kumar Bajaj R/o H.No.195, Sector-48-A, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1]  TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director Sh.Ravinder Kumar Taneja.

2]  TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Sales Office, TDI House, S.C.O. 678-679, Mohali-1, Sector-119 TDI Smart City, Mohali, through its AGM Sales & Marketing Sh.Bodh Raj Thakur.

3]  Ravinder Kumar Taneja Managing Director TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.

4]  Rohit Gogia (C.E.O.) TDI House, S.C.O. 678-679, Mohali-1, Sector-119 TDI Smart City, Mohali.

5]  Akshay Taneja Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited), 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

6]  Devki Nandan Taneja Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.

7]  Ved Prakash Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.

8]  Renu Taneja Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

9]  Aditya Rungta Director of TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Corporate. Office, 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.

10] Amit Batra, the then Regional Head, TDI Infra Tech Limited (formerly known as Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) Regional Office, TDI House, S.C.O. 678-679, Mohali-1, Sector-119 TDI Smart City, Mohali.

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by   :     Sh.Rajesh Gupta, Counsel for the complainant along    with Complainant No.2 in person.

Sh.Puneet Tuli, Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 8 & 10

OP No.9 exparte.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

         The complainants have filed the present complaint pleading that they had purchased a residential Plot bearing No.587 measuring 250 Sq.Yds. in TDI City, Sector 117-119, Mohali, Punjab being developed by the OP Company    (Ann.C-2). It is stated that the said plot was earlier purchased by one Gurbaksh Kaur, who purchased it from one Amrik Singh (Ann.C-1) and thereafter it has been transferred in the name of the complainants on 12.11.2011 (Ann.C-5) after making due payments.  It is also stated that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as transfer charges to the OP Company vide receipt dated 11.11.2011 (Ann.C-9 & C-10).  It is submitted that apart from making payment to the previous owner and transfer charges to OPs, the complainants further made payment of Rs.14 lacs to the OPs during period from April, 2011 to Oct., 2011 (Ann.C-12) and only thereafter the allotment of the plot in question was transferred on 12.11.2011 in their name by the OPs and in this way, the complainants have paid an amount of Rs.36,55,150/- to the OPs against the plot in question. 

         It is pleaded that despite receipt of amount mentioned in the complaint of the plot in question in the year 2011, the OPs have neither executed Buyer’s Agreement nor handed over the possession of the plot to the complainants. It is also pleaded that presently the OPs are selling the adjoining plots at the same location @Rs.34,500/- and in this way, the price of the plot comes out to be Rs.86,25,000/- which shows that the complainant have suffered huge loss on account of OPs being deficient in providing service to them. The complainants have approached the OPs a number of time and sent communications dated 18.11.2019 and 15.1.2020 (Ann.C-15 & C-16) to get the possession but the OPs are putting vague excuses.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to handover the possession of the plot in question or any other plot at same location in same sector, along with interest for delayed possession as well as compensation and litigation expenses etc.

 

2]       After notice of the complaint, the OPs No.1 to 8 & 10 put in appearance, filed their written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about allotment of the plot in question in favour of the complainant and its transfer in their name from the previous owner by OP No.1 Company, stated that OP No.2 to 8 & 10 were only the official/officer of the OP No.1 Company.  It is stated that the allotment of the plot in question was made jointly.

         It is submitted that as per government policy, the proposal of the OP Company to develop an area of 160 acres of land within village Ballo Majra (Mohali) for an investment of over Rs.266.50 Crores, was accepted by the Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Punjab and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the OP Company on 21.12.2005 (Ann.R-2). It is also submitted that the Govt. of Punjab, apart from laying down certain conditions in the Letter of Intent, later on vide agreement executed with the OP Company accorded various concessions subject to certain conditions, one of them being that the residential project at the location specified must be of 100 acres or above at a single geographical location and shall be developed in contiguity. Further, the Govt. of Punjab also agreed to acquire the land for this project under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Company to the extent of 10% of the total area of the project as this was the main objective of the policy to develop the land. 

         It is pleaded that the previous owner Mr.Amrik Singh transferred his registration rights in respect of the plot to another party namely Mrs.Gurbaksh Kaur after complying with all necessary formalities with the Company and furnished required documents and after the approval of the layout plan on 25.03.2008, they were allotted a residential plot No.587 measuring 250 Sq. yds. in the forthcoming fully integrated township TDI City at Mohali on 28.05.2008 and the allotment was as per the tentative Layout Plans, which was subject to variations &  additions.  It is also pleaded that OP No.1 sent letter dated 09.01.2016 to the complainants to take an alternative plot but they did not approach, then on 13.04.2017 an intimation letter for taking the refund of the amount paid by the complainants was sent to them  (Ann.R-7) but the complainants did not respond. Denying all other allegations of the complainants and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs lastly have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       The OP No.9 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.7.2022.

4]       Replication has also been filed by the complainants controverting the assertions of the OPs No.1 to 8 & 10 made in their reply. 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

5]      The main question involved in the present complaint is that whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in respect of the delivering of the possession of the plot/unit in question or not ?

 

6]       In order to find out the answer to this question, the following facts & circumstances are necessary to be discussed:-

7]       From the record, it is observed that the complainants were admittedly allotted the plot in question by the OP No.1 Company, after being transferred from the previous owner, vide Allotment/Transfer dated 12.11.2011 (Ann.C-1).  The perusal of the record reveals that the OPs admitted to have already received amount as mentioned in the complaint in respect of the plot in question from the complainants including its previous owners and only then transferred the plot in question, but despite of all that the OP No.1 Company still has not provided the possession of the allotted plot to the complainants.  Thus it is clear that the OP No.1 Company has failed to fulfill its legal/contractual obligation by offering possession of the originally allotted plot/unit to the complainants, having basic amenities, within the stipulated time or within a reasonable time, so the complainants/purchasers cannot be compelled to take possession of another plot in lieu thereof in another area/location or sector.

8]       It is settled law by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed:

“It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers.

 

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed:-

    “The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself. By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

          Hence, the act of the OP Company to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not giving the confirm date of handing over possession of the plot in question certainly proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. 

9]       In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. Vs.  Union of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it is held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  Similar principle of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766), while holding as under:-

“…….We would reiterate that the statutory Boards and Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer forum in case of deficiency of services as has already been decided in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.[1]; Karnataka Industrial Areas and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.[2]. This Court in Narne Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [3] referred to its earlier decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [4] and duly discussed the wide connotation of the terms “consumer” and “service” under the consumer protection laws and reiterated the observation of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra) which is provided hereunder :

“5. In the context of the housing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body and whether such activity tantamounts to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court observed: (LDA case, SCC pp. 256- 57, para 6):

“…when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and the other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act….”

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed: -

Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

 

10]      In our opinion, the complainants are not obliged to accept any other offer of OPs when they failed to deliver the allotted plot. The OPs have accepted the money, but failed to honour the commitment/promise made with complainants by delivering the possession of the allotted plot despite receipt of complete cost.  Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OP No.1 Company, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainants, but also caused them immense harassment & mental agony.  

 

11]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.1 Company is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 (TDI Infra Tech Limited).           Accordingly, the present complaint stands Partly Allowed against the OP No.1 (TDI Infra Tech Limited) with directions to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainants, having all basic facilities & amenities, subject to balance payment, if any. In case the OP No.1 Company is not in a position to deliver originally allotted plot in question to the complainants, in that eventuality, the OP NO.1 Company is directed to allot another plot of same size (250 sq. yards) in the same sector (Sector 118 Mohali) to the complainants, having all basic facilities & amenities, subject to balance payment, if any.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 Company within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

 

12]      The complaint qua remaining OPs stands dismissed.

13]      Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.    

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.01.2024                                       

                                                                                       Sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER