Delhi State Commission Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Failure To Deliver Possession Of Flat Within Stipulated Time

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms Pinki (Judicial Member) held 'TDI Infrastructure Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for its failure to deliver the possession of a booked plot within the stipulated deadline. Brief Facts: The Complainant was allotted a plot in the project developed by TDI Infrastructure (“Developer”). The Developer assured the Complainant that the possession of the plot would be handed over to him within 3 years from the date of purchase, i.e., 03.07.2008. Based on this promise, the Complainant kept making timely payments including the External and Internal Development Charges. However, even after the aforementioned deadline, the possession of the plot was not transferred to the Complainant. Further, no substantial progress was made in either the development of the plot or the township and only false assurances were given. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”). In response, the Developer submitted that the State Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the project was based in Haryana. The Developer also contended that the Complainant bought the plot for commercial purposes. Therefore, he was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, of 2019. Observations of the Commission: At the outset, the State Commission referred to Narinder Kumar Bairwal and Ors. vs Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. [CC-1122/2018], where it was held that the burden of proof lies on the opposite party to show that the property was bought for commercial purposes. The Developer failed to provide proof that the Complainant bought the plot for a commercial purpose or for making a profit. Therefore, the State Commission rejected the Developer's objection regarding the status of the Complainant as a 'consumer'. With respect to the territorial jurisdiction, the State Commission observed that the Developer's branch office was situated in Delhi. Therefore, it was held that the State Commission had appropriate jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Further referring to the issues on merits, the State Commission referred to Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544]. In this case, it was held that failing to deliver the possession of a plot within the stipulated time amounts to a deficiency in service. The State Commission observed that the Developer failed to deliver the plot's possession within 3 years of purchase. This caused significant distress to the Complainant. As a result, the State Commission held that the Developer was deficient in its service. It failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and gave false assurances to the Complainant. Therefore, the Developer was directed to refund the booking amount of Rs. 30,26,250/- with 6% interest. Additionally, the Developer was directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation costs. Case Title: Mr DK Santoshi vs TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Case No.: 233/2019 Advocate for the Complainant: Mr Himanshu Thakur Advocate for the Opposite Party: Mr Vaibhav Agnihotri Date of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi State Commission Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Failure To Deliver Possession Of Flat Within Stipulated Time

Smita Singh

Tags