PARDEEP SINGH PAHAL Vs. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of one order of State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

(2.) Appeal No. 1138 of 2014 has been filed by the complainant and Appeal No. 1423 of 2014 has been filed by OP against the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 89/2011 Pardeep Singh Pahal Vs. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by which, complaint was allowed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant applied for allotment of a shop in 'Radeo Drive Complex' in TDI City at Kundali, a project developed by OP and paid Rs.8,50,000/- as registration amount. OP allotted shop No. 205 having covered area of 536 sq. fts. and super built up area 800 sq. ft. vide letter dated 31.08.2006. As per demand of OP, complainant deposited total Rs.35,20,000/- towards this shop against total cost of Rs.44,00,000/-. This amount was deposited with a dream to have his own business, but OP has not handed over possession of unit till date even after 24 months from sanction of building plans. It was further submitted that on 6.3.2011, complainant found no construction activity at the complex and in such circumstances, by letter dated 12.3.2011 requested OP to refund amount with interest, but OP did not bother to reply. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State commission. OP resisted complaint and admitted allotment of shop and receipt of money. It was further pleaded that Hon'ble High Court stayed operation and effect of licences and put the entire development work process on the standstill. After vacating stay order, construction work was reinstated. It was further submitted that complainant was not consumer as the allotment of shop was obtained with motive of earning profit, but unfortunately due to global economic meltdown, prices declined and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Complainant filed replica and submitted that complainant agreed to purchase commercial unit for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.35,20,000/- with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/- against which both parties filed appeals.