At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. ANIL SRIVASTAVA
For the Complainant: Tarun Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: Dhruv, Advocate.
1. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Arun Bhardwaj resident of District Sonepat, Haryana, for short complainant against the T.D.I. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OPs, in pursuance of an order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, in CC-174/2014 returning the complaint keeping in view the fact that the forum was handicapped hearing the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The allegation of the complainant is that the OPs have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant, they having not delivered the possession of the flat booked by him despite agreed period having elapsed and despite payment as required having been made. The complainant has prayed for the relief as under:-
It is therefore most respectfully and graciously prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased:
a. To pass an order directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 9,70,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant from the date of booking till its realisation.
b. To pass a order directing the OP/respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to this complainant and Rs. 25,000/- as costs of this complaint.
c. Pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the OP in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3. The complainant had booked a floor with the OP in the scheme named as “Kundli Tuscan Floors” vide receipt no. 0001006 dated 19.01.2012 by cheque no. 959004 dated 24.12.2011 of an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The OP allotted the complainant customer ID No. KDF-111-0027 and the booking No. KTFBK00029/1112. The OP assured the complainant at the time of booking that they have got all the necessary clearances from the concerned Govt. Departments. On this assurance the complainant had booked the said floor with the OP. The OP again demanded Rs. 5,69,334/- on the pretext of allotment of the floor. The complainant paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- to the OP vide receipt no. KPFRCB/001039/1112. The complainant has consequently paid a total amount of Rs 9,70,000/- to the OP in the name of booking and allotment of above said floor with the OP/respondent.
4. According to the complainant it is almost three years since the booking and two years have been passed from the last date of demand of payment but not even a single brick have been put by the OP nor any digging work or selection of land has been made by the OP as yet. The complainant came to know that the OP/respondent was never in a position to float the above said scheme. Infact the OP has only cheated the complainant since no work for the commencement of the project has commenced and the OP is misusing the money deposited by the complainant.
5. The complainant has accordingly alleged that the act of non-performance regarding the commencement of the above said scheme is nothing but is deficiency in services on the part of the OP. In these circumstances the refund has been sought for.
6. For this purpose even a legal notice was issued but that could also evoke no response leading to filing of this Complaint for the redressal of the grievance, first before the District Forum but later before this Commission.
7. OPs had filed written statement resisting the complaint stating inter alia that the refund of the amount as sought for can be done only in terms of the terms and conditions as agreed to between the parties.
8. Both parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit in support of their pleadings. Short question for adjudication in this complaint is whether the complainant is entitled for the refund as prayed for.
9. This matter was listed before this Commission for final hearing on 28.02.2020 when the counsel for both sides appeared and advanced the arguments, the complainant for the refund of the deposited amount with interest and the OPs for dismissal of the complaint as according to them there is no deficiency on their part. I have perused the records of the case and given thoughtful consideration to the subject matter.
10. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had deposited the amount for the purpose of the floor unit. It is not the case of the OPs that they have completed the project. Under these circumstances deficiency is proved, in which case the complaint deserves to be accepted.
11. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Anil Shantilal Gandhi versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. as reported in IV  CPJ 24 (NC) in pleased to direct refund of the amount deposited with interest @ 10%, the OP having failed to off
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
er the possession of the allotted unit to complainant even after more than eight years time. 12.Having regard to this conclusion I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the OPs to refund the deposited amount with simple interest at the rate of 9% from the date of deposit till realisation. 13. Ordered accordingly. 14. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. File be consigned to records.