TDI INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short, the "Act") impugning the order dtd. 29/4/2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, "State Commission") in FA number 908 of 2012 against the order dtd. 9/5/2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (in short, "District Forum") in CC no. 1039 of 2009.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant had booked a plot measuring 500 sq. yards with M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TDI Infrastructure, the present petitioner, in one of their projects named TDI City, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. The petitioner had agreed to sell the plot at the rate of Rs.7750.00 per sq. yard and the allotment was to be made within a period of six months. An amount of Rs.7,75,000.00 has admittedly been paid on 7/10/2005 followed by another instalment of Rs.3,87,500.00 on 30/1/2006. However, no allotment of a plot in the name of the respondent/complainant has been made by the petitioner so far. The respondent had issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 19/7/2008 which did not elicit any response from the petitioner herein.

(3.) The respondent thereafter filed consumer complaint no.1039 of 2009 before the District Forum which allowed the complaint on contest and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant Rs.11,62,500.00. The respondent approached the State Commission in appeal against the order of the District Forum in FA no. 908 of 2012. Vide the impugned order dtd. 29/4/2016, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that the petitioner herein had failed to present evidence to prove their entitlement under their company's policy to deduct 10% of the deposited amount. The order of the State Commission was as under: