Failure To Meet Contractual Obligations: Delhi State Commission Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service

The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki held TDI Infrastructure liable for deficiency in service due to non fulfillment of contractual obligations and delay in handing over the possession. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant booked a flat in the TDI Infrastructure/builder's project, paying an initial deposit followed by additional payments as demanded. Despite these payments, no construction began for the allotted flat. The builder later informed the complainant of delays and offered an alternate flat, which the complainant refused, citing an already six-year-long delay since booking. Frustrated by the builder's failure to deliver possession within the promised timeframe, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, alleging deficiency. The complainant seeks allotment of the flat, payment of Rs. 17,50,000 as per agreement, Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation and Rs. 20,000 as litigation costs. Contentions of the Builder The builder argued that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant invested in real estate for profit. It was also stated that the complainant had defaulted on payments for the flat. Based on these points, the builder requested the dismissal of the complaint. Observations by the State Commission The State Commission observed the first issue is whether the complainant qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. In Aashish Oberai Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, the National Commission ruled that owning multiple properties doesn't automatically make the purchase a commercial one. Similarly, in Narinder Kumar Bairwal vs Ramprastha Promoters, it was held that the builder must provide evidence that the property was bought for commercial purposes. In the present case, the builder's claim that the complainant bought the property for commercial use lacks proof, so the complainant is considered a consumer. The Commission highlighted that the next issue is whether the builder is deficient in providing services. According to the Supreme Court in Arifur Rahman Khan vs DLF Southern Homes, a builder's failure to meet contractual obligations, like handing over possession on time, amounts to a deficiency. Referring to Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Shobha Arora, the commission noted that without a specified time, possession must be delivered within a reasonable period. If the possession is delayed beyond 42 to 48 months, deficiency is proven. Since the builder has not handed over possession, deficiency is confirmed.The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the builder to to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant i.e., Rs. 6,58,500 with 6% interest, Rs. 1,00,000 as cost for mental agony and Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs. Case Title: Mr. Raman Singla Vs. TDI Infrastructure Ltd Case Number: C.C. No. 1231/2018 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Failure To Meet Contractual Obligations: Delhi State Commission Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service

Ayushi Rani

Tags