Delhi

StateCommission

CC/672/2018

SANDEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PUNEET BHATNAGAR

17 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 17.07.2019

Date of Decision :22.07.2019

COMPLAINT NO.672/2018

            In the matter of:

 

Sandeep Kumar,

S/o. Late Shri Dhan Raj Prasad,

R/o. A-1/69, Sector-3,

Rohini, Delhi-110085.

(Through Shri Deepak Prasad,

Attorney holder).………Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.,

Having its registered office at 9, KG Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

Also at:

Vandana Building, Upper Ground Floor-11,

Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

(Through its Managing Director/ Director/

Company Secretary/ Authorised Signatory.

 

2. M/s. Chopra Properties,

Through Proprietor/ Partners,

Shri Deepak Chopra and Dhiraj Chopra,

372 Kohat Enclave, Pitampura,

New Delhi.……..Opposite Parties

CORAM

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

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

 

1. Initially this complaint was filed in District Forum where it was registered as no.C-02/2016. Later on  the same was returned due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and was refiled in this Commission. The case of the complainant was that he was allotted residential  built up third Tuscan Floor, measuring 1164 sq. ft. in TDI City (KTF-3) at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana for Rs.29,50,000/-. He paid first instalment of Rs.4 lakhs by cheque. Clause no.4 of the terms  and conditions laid that if OP was not able to provide allotment for a period of one year from the date of credit of application money, it shall be liable to refund the full amount with interest @10% per annum.
2. The complainant further paid Rs.5,07,621/- against receipt dated 25.02.12. He lost all hopes and sensed a calculated fraud being played upon him. He apprised OP to refund his money. He was told that allotment of three Tuscan in TDI City in Kundli was scraped due to some legal issues. He was allured to transfer his investment in another project namely Lake Drive Apartment at escalated price of Rs.48,60,000/-. He was threatened that in case he didn’t accept the offer, his initial payment would not be refunded. He accepted the offer and paid Rs.50,000/- by two cheques. He received information that total cost of converted flat was fixed at Rs.60 lakhs against promised price of Rs.48,60,000/. He sent letter dated  30.07.15 requesting OP to refund the entire amount with interest @20% per annum which was the rate of penal interest in  annexures of OP. He sent legal notice dated 23.11.15 to which no reply was received. Hence this complaint for directing OP to refund Rs.9,57,621/- with interest @18% per annum which was bank lending rate w.e.f.26.02.12, Rs.One lakh towards damage and litigation expenses. OP was served for 23.03.16 and put in appearance through its counsel Shri Karan Manocha, Advocate. Copy of complaint was supplied. n 25.04.16 adjournment was granted to OP to file WS subject to cost of Rs.700/-. Still OP failed to file WS and its right to file WS was closed vide order dated 05.05.16.
3. In  his evidence the complainant filed affidavit of his brother/ special attorney named Shri Deepak Prasad.
4. The complainant has filed written arguments. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no reason to dis-believe the un-rebutted version of the complainant particularly when the same is supported by documentary evidence. The act of the OP in changing the project, revising the price of re-allotted unit amounts to unfair practice. The booking was done in 2011. Now we are in 2019. There is no construction. The OP is guilty of deficiency of service.
5. In view of the above discussion the complaint is allowed. OP-1 is directed to refund Rs.9,57,621/- with interest at the agreed rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund.
6. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
7. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)