TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 477 of 2013 Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Pardeep Mathur by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent applied for a flat bearing No. T-113/GF measuring 1164 Sq. ft. in Project TDI City, Tuscon Floor in Kundli, Sonepat vide Customer ID No. KTF-10308 dated 30.4.2010 and deposited Rs.16,92,286/- with the opposite parties/petitioner from time to time. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the construction of the flat. As there was no progress in construction at the site, the complainant approached the opposite parties to know the reason but the opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply. Legal notice dated 3.4.2012 and 8.5.2012 were also served upon the opposite parties but to no effect. Instead of delivering possession of the flat, the opposite parties cancelled the booking of the flat. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that the allotment of the flat was cancelled due to non-payment of dues by the complainant. It was further stated that the basic cost of the flat was Rs.27,50,000/- whereas the pecuniary limit of the District forum was upto Rs.20.00 lacs and therefore the complaint before the District forum was not maintainable. Denying the allegations of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to handover possession of flat on depositing balance amount by complainant with 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order increased rate of interest from 9% to 10% and rest of the order was upheld against which, this revision petition along with application for condonation of delay was filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.