Appeal Against TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

Appeal Against TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

by

This case covers QUASHING THE APPEAL  TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & 2 ORS v. ADITYA TOMAR against State Commission order.

The present post will cover and give an overview of the case and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around claiming, transferring and releasing of the property as the transfer of property.  And it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case.

Also Read- TDI Infracorp State Commission Haryana Complaint

Petitioner –

Ms. Kanika Agnihotri

Respondent –

          Mr. C. B. TOMAR

Direction of the state commission:

  1. To refund an amount of Rs.32,10,788/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till . the date of its realization.
  2. to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.5 Lac i.e. @ Rs. 1 Lac p.a. for the delayed possession.
  3. to pay to the complainant litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The above said amount shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant within a period of 30 days from today, failing which interest @ 24% p.a. shall be liable to paid by the OPs thereon .

Also Read- Haryana RERA Complaint against TDI Infrastructure

Facts of case:

  1. This Commission by way of the present appeal.
  2. The learned counsel stated that as per the prayer clause in the consumer complaint, the complainant never asked for refund of the amount deposited, but still, the State Commission had Being aggrieved against the above order of the State Commission, the OP Builders are before ordered refund along with an exorbitant interest @18% p.a. The learned counsel argued that any order passed beyond pleadings of the parties, was bad in the eyes of law. In support of her arguments, the learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bachhaj Nahar vs , saying that relief could be granted only Nilima Mandal & Ors.” [AIR (2009) SC 1103] with reference to the prayer made in the consumer complaint.
  3. The learned counsel further argued that during proceedings in the consumer complaint, a settlement had been affected between the parties and a copy of the said settlement deed had been placed on record.
  4. The learned counsel for the appellants/OPs has taken the line of argument that since the prayer clause in the complaint mentions about handing over the possession of the flat only, the State Commission could not have allowed refund of the amount deposited with the appellants/Ops.
  5. This letter implies that the construction work had not been completed till the date of sending the said letter, meaning thereby that there was no question of delivery of possession by the promised date, i.e., 10.09.2011.Further, it has been stated in the impugned order passed by the State Commission that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 08.08.2012 to the OP Builders with regard to the delivery of the possession, but the said notice was not replied to by them. There is another letter dated 19.11.2012, sent by the appellants/OPs to the complainant, but there is no mention of possession in the said letter.
  6. It has been mentioned in the said letter that in earlier correspondence, the complainant was informed to take possession of the flat by clearing the outstanding dues. However, there is no reference from where it could be deciphered about the exact date, when the possession was offered.
  7. In their written version to the consumer complaint filed before the State Commission also, the appellants/OPs have mentioned that they offered possession of the flat to the complainant, but the exact date of offer of possession has not been mentioned in the said written version as well.  It is evident from the entire material on record, therefore, that the appellants/OPs failed to deliver possession of the property within the time promised.

Also Read- TDI infrastructure – Indian Kanoon

Revised decision of court:

              The order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, modified to say that the appellants/OPs shall refund a sum of 32,10,788/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of deposit till realisation and also pay cost of litigation to the tune of 1 lakh as awarded by the State Commission.  The payment in terms of this order shall be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the said order by the appellants/OPs.  There shall be no order as to costs.

For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

More on 99888-17966.

Call Us