Post covers TDI City Consumer Case for Refund of Amount wherein only symbolic possession was given sans completion certificate which is not legal as per law.
Let’s read the case now.
TITLE: RAJESH ARORA CASE
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The complainant booked a plot in the respondent’s scheme known as “TDI city”. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, as he is aggrieved of deficiency in providing service and negligence on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2, as they failed to deliver actual physical possession of plot It is the case of the complainant that the plot in question had been booked in the said project, as far as back on 09.05.2008 and as per demands raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2, from time to time, for the period from 26.05.2008 to 31.01.2012, he had paid an amount of Rs.32,84,560/- against total sale consideration of Rs.34,12,500/-, yet, only a symbolic possession i.e. in the absence of necessary approvals/sanctions and also development at the project site, was offered vide letter dated 09.04.2012, After receipt of the said letter, the complainant made number of requests to opposite parties no.1 and 2 to deliver actual physical possession of the plot in question after completing the project and also after getting clearances/approvals, but to no avail. To his utter shock, after a period of about more than 5 years, without redressing his grievance, he was told to get the sale deed executed in respect of the plot in question and also to make remaining payment. In the absence of delivery of valid possession, the company started charging maintenance charges etc.
Also Read- TDI Infracorp State Commission Haryana Complaint
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
COMPLAINANTS ARGUMENTS
The delivery of possession was delivered late to the complainant. It took 5 years to get the possession and until then maintenance charges were asked to be paid by the respondent. By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking possession of the plot in question, or in the alternative to refund the of amount paid alongwith interest, compensation etc.
Also Read- Property Related Legal Advice – Legalseva.net
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The complaint of the complainant has been contested by the opposite parties on numerous grounds. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 stated that the complainant being investor, did not fall within the definition of “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint; that the complaint filed is time barred; that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission; that only Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint; that in the face of arbitration clause contained in the agreement this consumer complaint is not maintainable; and that because the project in question has been got registered under RERA and also even if some project is not got registered under the same, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred from entertaining any complaint and only the provisions of RERA will be applicable in that event.
Opposite party no.3 in its written reply stated that since no allegations qua deficiency in providing service have been leveled against it, as such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against it; Opposite party no.4 in it written stated that since no service was to be provided by it to the complainant, as such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against it; that the complainant is not the consumer of opposite party no.4.
Also Read- Haryana RERA Complaint against TDI Infrastructure
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
First of all coming to the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that it is settled law that even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be part of the cause of action and confer jurisdiction on the Court/Tribunal/Fora within the territorial limits of which that occurs. Now we will deal with the objection taken with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned; it may be stated here that this complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under which, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction, this Commission is required to take into consideration the value of the goods and compensation claimed if any, by the complainant. In the present case also, if the total value of the plot in question i.e. Rs.34,12,500/-, plus other reliefs claimed are clubbed together, it fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore, as such, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In this view of the matter, objection taken stands rejected.
As far as objection taken to the effect that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, it may be stated that it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31 but since they failed to discharge their onus, hence we hold that the complainant is a consumer. Objection taken in this regard is rejected.
Under above circumstances, it is held that in the absence of necessary permissions referred to above; valid completion certificate from the competent authorities; and also the fact that the project is still under litigation, opposite parties no.1 and 2 were not in a position to deliver possession of the plot in question, in the year 2012 and as such, possession so offered by them to the complainant, vide letter dated 09.04.2012, was nothing but a paper possession, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Also read- Haryana State Commission TDI Infracorp – Legalseva.net
CONCLUSION
In the present case also, since there has been an inordinate delay in the matter and the complainant is holding only a symbolic possession as such, we are of the considered opinion that if we order refund of the amount paid alongwith suitable interest, that will meet the ends of justice. The complainant is therefore held entitled to get refund of the amount actually paid by him alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits.
SIMILAR JUDGEMNETS
The Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in H.U.D.A. Vs. Neelam Sharma,decided on 18.08.2004, wherein it was held that in case of refund of amount, the Interest Act would apply and 12% interest is to be granted from the date of amounts deposited till repayment. Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble National Commission in Anil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s. Nexgen Infracon Private Limited (A Mahagun Group Company) , decided on 23rd Dec 2019, also ordered refund of the amount paid, alongwith interest @12% p.a.
Also Read- TDI Infrastructure RERA Panchkula – Legalseva.net
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
More on 99888-17966.
