Haryana

StateCommission

A/404/2019

NAVIN CHHIKARA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH NUNIWAL

23 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.404 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 25.04.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 23.07.2019

 

 

Navin Chhikara son of Shri Ranbir Singh, permanent resident of Village Juan, Tehsil and District Sonepat, at present resident of House No.995, G.F., Sector 22B, Gurgaon, through its Special Power of Attorney Sunita daughter of Shri Zile Singh, resident of House No.302, Block Daffodil, Amravati, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

 

 

…..Complainant-Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      TDI Infrastructure Limited (formerly known as TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and prior to that known as Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd.) a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1950 having its registered office at 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-01.

 

2.      Shri Rajat Nagpal son of Shri B.M. Nagpal, authorized signatory of the company TDI Infra. Ltd., registered office at 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-01.

 

 

…Opposite Parties-Respondents

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Deepak Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri Rakesh Nuniwal, counsel for the appellant.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          Complainant Navin Chhikara has filed the instant appeal against the order dated October 10^th, 2016 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat.

2.      Vide impugned order, learned District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.13,28,214/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties towards the price of flat/apartment consisting of three bed rooms with an approximate area of 129.13 square meters along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. However, in the present appeal, he is seeking the interest on the refunded amount from the date of its deposits instead of filing of the complaint and rent for 39 months.

3.      According to the complainant, he had applied for allotment of a flat/apartment of three bed rooms having approximate area of 129.13 square meters (1390 square feet) on 09.12.2010. The complainant had paid Rs.13,28,214/- from time to time to the opposite parties. The possession was required to be given in 30 months after the agreement but uptil the filing of the complaint, the construction work had not even started at the spot, which amounted to gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, he filed the present complaint.

4.      In their written version, the opposite parties submitted that the possession of the flat could not be delivered exactly within 30 months from the date of agreement. The completion of construction work was subject to force majeure conditions. It was a mega project and the construction work of the project reached upto 75% target. The construction work of towers 1 to 14 was almost at the final stage and the construction work of tower No.15 was going to be started very shortly. If the complainant was in hurry to get the flat, the opposite parties were ready to allot alternative flat in the same project where the construction work had reached at the final stage. The complainant was however not entitled to the relief of compensation as sought by him. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

5.      As mentioned above, learned District Forum after going through the record directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.13,28,214/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

6.      The complainant had applied for the allotment of flat/apartment on 09.12.2010. It was on 19.01.2012 that buyer’s agreement was executed. Admittedly, the complainant had paid Rs.13,28,214/- from time to time. Though the possession was required to be handed over in 30 months i.e. upto 19.07.2014 yet it is made out that out of various towers to be constructed by the opposite parties, 14 of them have reached upto the stage of 75%. The construction of tower No.15 was also to start shortly. So much so that the opposite parties took the stand that if the complainant was in hurry to move in the flat, they would allot alternative flat to him. However, the learned District Forum while holding that the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions were issued to the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount to the complainant along with interest.

7.      Learned District Forum had awarded interest on the deposited amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Once it is apparent the opposite parties had achieved significant success in construction of the flats/apartments, no case is made out for issuing directions to the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of actual deposits.

8.      In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

 

Announced 23.07.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.