CM(M) 13932017 Page 1 of 20

$~59(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1393/2017 & CM APPL. 44730/2017

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms.Kanika

Agnihotri,

Ms.Yashodhara

Gupta,

Mr.Vaibhav

Agnihotri and Mr.Madhav Bhatia, Advs.

versus

UOI AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T(O R A L)

%

20.05.2022

1.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

assails order dated 23^rd November, 2017, passed by the learned

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the learned

NCDRC)

in

Consumer

Complaint

1747/2016,

alongwith

IA/10846/2016 and IA/1063/2017 (Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.

TDI Infrastructure Ltd.) filed therein.

2.

It may be noted, here, that, of the two complainants before the

learned NCDRC, Complainant 2 settled the matter with the petitioner

and, therefore, the proceedings before the learned NCDRC survived

only in respect of Complainant 1 Vinod Kumar.

3.

The petitioner has impleaded the Union of India as Respondent

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002160

CM(M) 13932017 Page 2 of 20

1 as certain omnibus directions are sought, expressing grievance

regarding the manner in which applications under Section 12(1)(c) of

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are being disposed of by the

learned NCDRC. I do not propose in this petition to enter into the said

larger issue. Accordingly, the UOI is deleted from the array of parties.

4.

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents after 5^th

April, 2022, when a Counsel had appeared consequent to issuance of

court notice on 31^st March, 2022. Thereafter, however, though the

matter has been listed on 7^th April, 2022, 13^th April, 2022, 20^th April,

2022 and 27^th April, 2022, Respondent 2 has remained unrepresented.

Today the matter was passed over once and was called out a second

time. There is no appearance on behalf of either of the respondents

today.

5.

The issue in controversy is covered by my recent decision in

Lucina Land Development Ltd. v. UOI¹.

6.

As such, I have heard Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned Counsel

for the petitioner and perused the record, and proceed to dispose of the

present petition.

7.

These proceedings emanate from a complaint, filed by

Respondent 2 and Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi against the petitioner under

Section 21(a)(i) read with Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986 (“the Act” hereinafter). The grievances as ventilated in the

12022 SCC OnLine Del 1274

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002160

CM(M) 13932017 Page 3 of 20

complaint were with respect to a township project of the petitioner,

named “TDI City”, at Kundli Sonipat, Haryana (hereinafter referred to

as “the Project”). Admittedly, the project comprised housing units in

various blocks, designated as Blocks A to L. The complainants were

buyers of residential plots in the project. They complained, in the

complaint, that the plots allotted to them were undeveloped and

inhabitable and were lacking basic amenities.

8.

The grievances in the complaint included (i) lack of clear title,

complete licenses and statutory sanctions, with the petitioner, (ii)

collection of amounts from the consumers in excess of the price

reflected in the statement issued by the petitioner at the stage of

allotment, which was represented, at that stage, to be the complete and

final price, (iii) escalation of the price of individual plots several times

on the ground that the External Developmental Charges (EDC) had

been revised by the State of Haryana retrospectively, along with

penalty, (iv) usage, by the petitioner, of a part completion certificate

issued by the concerned authorities in Haryana, without specifying the

part of the project in respect of which the certificate had been issued,

(v)