TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.02.2015, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 320/2012, filed by the present respondent, vide which, the said complaint was allowed and the appellant builder was directed to refund the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit and also to pay 3.5 lac as compensation for delayed possession and 1 lac as litigation charges. The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant booked a residential flat with the appellants/opposite parties (OPs) Builders, M/s. TDI Infrastructure Limited on 17.03.2006, after making an initial payment of 4 lakh, in their project called Kingsbury Apartments, TDI City, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. The complainant entered into an Apartment-Buyer's Agreement with the OP Builders on 10.09.2009, as per which, the possession of the said apartment was to be delivered to the complainant within two years of the agreement, i.e., upto 10.09.2011. The complainant stated that he had made a total payment of 32,01,746/- for the flat till 07.05.2012, against the total cost of 34,51,175/- as quoted in the agreement, but the OPs were not able to give possession to him as promised, which reflected deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The balance 5% of the amount was to be paid to the OP Builders at the time of the delivery of possession. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 08.08.2012, but they did not send any reply to the same. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, with the following prayer:-

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the OP Builders by filing written version before the State Commission, in which they stated that the complainant had defaulted in making timely payments to them and hence, violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is also stated in the written version that they sent a letter dated 26.04.2012 to the complainant, saying that the external finishing work of the unit was complete and that he should make payment of the amount due to them. However, despite sending reminders, the complainant did deposit the amount in question. The OPs further stated that they offered possession of the unit to the complainant and intimated him about the final area and the total amount payable, but the complainant did come forward to take possession of the unit after clearing the outstanding dues. The OP builders requested that the consumer complaint should be dismissed.

(3.) The State Commission after taking into account the averments made by the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed as follows:-