SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Veena Birbal and Salma Noor, Members
BALWANT MUNJAL - Appellant
Versus
TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED - Respondent
Complaint Case No. 289 of 2012
Decided on : 18-04-2018

The court established that the respondent's actions did not warrant forfeiture of the amount paid by the allottee and emphasized the right to refund with interest and compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Complaint under Section 17 - Act Section List: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 17, and interpreted the rights and obligations of the parties under the Act. The court's decision was influenced by the provisions related to refund of payments, compensation for harassment, and litigation costs.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant's wife was allotted a residential flat but faced issues with payment demands and cancellation of allotment. The complainant sought transfer of the flat or refund of the deposited amount with interest and compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allottee had made payments and sought settlement of the dispute, but the respondent cancelled the allotment and failed to address the allottee's requests. The court rejected the respondent's contention for forfeiture and directed the refund of the entire amount paid by the allottee with interest and compensation.

Issues: Non-payment, cancellation of allotment, forfeiture of amount, delay in construction, and third-party interest in the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's actions did not justify forfeiture of the amount paid by the allottee and directed the refund of the entire amount with interest and compensation.

Final Decision: The respondent was directed to refund the entire amount paid by the allottee with interest at 12% from the date of each deposit till realization, and to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for harassment and litigation costs.

ORDER

Salma Noor, Member. - A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (in short, the "Act") is filed by the complainant Mr. Balwant Munjal wherein it is stated that his wife Mrs. Shashi Munjal was allotted a residential flat bearing No. G-2-0602, area 1,110 sq. ft. in the Township "TDI city" at Kundli, Sonepat by the respondent, M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. on 22.11.2006. The complainant's wife Mrs. Munjal paid Rs. 7,33,071.43 towards part payment of the sale price, upto 12.8.2008, which according to complainant was payable till that time. On 25.11.2008, respondent sent a demand letter for Rs. 1,43,367 by alleging that construction of ground floor roof slab had started. On 3.6.2009, respondent demanded Rs. 1,42,874 on the ground stated in the aforesaid letter. Further, demands were raised by the respondent vide letter dated 28.6.2009, 1.7.2009, 27.7.2009, 3.2.2009,20.4.2010 and 30.6.2010. On 13.80.2010 respondent demanded payment of Rs. 9,56,249 by 31.8.2010, failing which allotment of flat was to be shifted to future blocks. It was alleged that on 10.9.2010, wife of the complainant wrote a letter to the respondent seeking two months time to make payment. Thereupon, respondent vide letter dated 27.9.2010 sent a notice threatening that if the outstanding amount was not paid by or before 25.10.2010 the provisional allotment will be cancelled. The wife of complainant wrote letter dated 4.10.2010 to respondent to settle the issue of interest and then she would make the payment of the due amount, however, no reply was given. Again on 16.10.2010 wife of the complainant sent a legal notice for settling the matter but no reply was given. Thereafter, wife of the complainant on 29.11.2010 again sent a legal notice stating therein that she was ready to make further payment on being given reasonable interest and if same was not possible in that event amount deposited be refunded to her along with compensation. On 17.11.2011 wife of the complainant died. Thereafter on 19.4.2012 complainant sent a legal notice to the respondent in place of his wife for settling the dispute amicably, but no reply was received. The complainant again sent a detailed legal notice on 24.7.2012. On receipt of said notice respondent called him to discuss the matter but the dispute was not settled. Ultimately the present complaint is filed wherein prayer is made for transfer of the flat in question in favour of the complainant and to hand over its possession or in the alternative refund of Rs. 7,33,071 deposited with the respondent with interest @18% per annum. Further, Rs. 1,00,000 is prayed for mental agony and harassment

2. In reply OP admitted that wife of the complainant had booked the flat in question and the amount of Rs. 7,33,071.41 paid by her. However, it is stated that complainant has wilfully and intentionally suppressed the material facts. It is stated that provisional allotment of flat was cancelled due to nonpayment of instalments despite repeated requests and reminders sent to the allottee. It is further stated that demands were sent as per schedule of payment agreed by the wife of the complainant and no frivolous demands were raised. It is stated that due to non-payment allotment was cancelled by sending letter dated 27.9.2010. It is also alleged that due to continuous defaults in making the payment the amount paid by the wife of the complainant has been forfeited as per terms of the agreement.

3. Rejoinder is filed denying that there was default on the part of wife of complainant. The complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint case.

4. Both the parties have filed evidence in the form of affidavits and also filed written arguments.

5. The parties are heard and the evidence placed on file perused.

6. The complainant has filed his affidavit wherein contents of complaint case are reiterated on oath. To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record copy of application and receipt of Rs. 3,00,000 Exb. CW-1/1 and CW -1/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top