State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Tdi Infra.Ltd. vs Chaman Lal & Anr on 6 November, 2025
FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 01.03.2023
Date of Hearing: 24.09.2025
Date of Decision: 06.11.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.-79/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
MAHINDRA TOWER, 2 A, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
SECOND FLOOR, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
(Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. MR. CHAMAN LAL JINDAL,
S/O. MR. GOPAL RAM
2. MS. NEERJA JINDAL,
W/O. MR. CHAMAN LAL JINDAL
BOTH RESIDENTS OF :
R/O. C-31, NEHRU ENCLAVE,
BEHIND JAIN HARDWARE,
NARELA ROAD,
ALIPUR, DELHI - 110 036.
( Through Kapil Jain & Associates)
Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 17
FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGA,(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Kapil Jain and Deepak Jain, Counsel for Respondents
(through VC)
PER : HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"1.The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) by complainants against Opposite Party (in short 'OP') alleging deficiency of services. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainants booked a Commercial Unit/shop in the Project "TDI City" at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana, measuring 400 sq. feet with Opposite Party and paid a sum of Rs.11,35,400/- through cheques and the said amount was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party, vide Customer ID: KCC- 10606.
2.The said commercial space was booked by the complainants, for their own personal use and occupation, as the complainants wanted to start new business for their son and for the purpose of earning their livelihood. At the time of initial booking, the Opposite Party assured that the offer of allotment shall be made within 12 months from the date of initial booking I.e.24.12.2006, however, nothing said has been done till date and the complainants have been duped of the aforesaid amount.
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
3. That the above said amount was paid by the complainants over period of time, as and when demand was raised by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party however did not start any construction nor informed the complainants about any progress at the Site. The Opposite Party however kept on demanding amount from the complainants on flimsy grounds. It is also stated that till date even after passing of 12 (Twelve) years from the date of booking no construction activity has been carried out at the site and the complainants have not been informed about the fate of the Project. The complainants were time and again assured that the construction at the site shall be completed shortly, but to no avail. At the time of receipt of the aforesaid amount, the complainants were informed that the construction shall be completed within a period of 36 months from the date of initial payment.
4. That Initially the Shop was booked with M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructures Ltd. and surprisingly, in the meantime, the Opposite Party took cheques from the complainants in the name of M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2006-2007 and thereafter, the Opposite Party received cheques in the name of TDI Infrastructure Ltd. All the said companies are the sister concerns of the OP and the entire payments have duly been acknowledged by the Opposite Party from time to time and they issued receipts thereof.
5. It is also alleged that the Opposite Party kept on threatening to cancel the allotment and allocate the Shop and forfeit the entire amount. It is also alleged that OP have neither allotted any Shop nor refunded the invested amount with interest and are in the process of grabbing the entire amount. Opposite Party have refused to provide to complainants any documents i.e. License Obtained, Sanction Plans, Copy of title ownership DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
and various other applicable approvals as per Government requirements.
6. The Opposite Party had also taken signatures of the complainants, on various blank papers and stamp papers, for the purpose of refunding the amount of another space in name of their sons Shri Chakshu Jindal and Shri Rajiv Jindal, however the complainants were never allowed to read the said papers and the even the contents to the said documents were never disclosed. However, the Opposite Party refunded the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to them, without any interest under false pretext that the interest shall be paid separately, but no Interest has been paid till date.
7. That constrained by the illegal acts of the Opposite Party, the complainants sent a legal notice through his counsel dated 08.02.2018 through Speed Post and asked the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.11,35,400/- (Eleven Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Only) paid by the complainants towards the purchases of Shop/commercial space along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till realization. The OP did not comply with the said notice.
8. It is stated that the complainants is a consumer and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. That the complainants is consumer as per the definition of consumers give under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is deficiency of service (Section 2(g) of the CP. Act (1986) on the part of the Opposite Party.
9. It is therefore prayed that the Opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs.11,35,400/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Only) paid by the DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
complainants towards the purchase of Shop/commercial space along with interest @24% per annum from the date of payment till realization to the complainants and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants for mental pain and agony and litigation charges of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand).
10. Pass any other or further order(s) or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the complaint in favour of the complainants and against the Opposite Party, in the interest of justice.
11. Notice of the complainants was issued to OP. OP entered appearance and file written statement alleging inter alia the Opposite Party along with its associate companies deals in development of real estate in the form of integrated township, comprising of residential and commercial plots of various dimensions, residential apartments, villas, multiplexes and malls etc., in various parts of North India. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party enjoys a great reputation in providing the services as undertaken with the great magnitude and in a time frame as committed. The integrated townships of TDI City at Panipat, TDI City at Moradabad are few instances of the committed and fully functioning services/projects undertaken by the Opposite Party. Another such project is TDI City at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana.
12. It was also stated that it is submitted that sometime in 2006 the Complainants approached the Opposite Party, with the intention of investing in commercial Unit in the upcoming Project 'RODEO DRIVE' Mall, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana of the Opposite Party. Complainants booked a commercial DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
unit/shop and paid Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) as booking amount and was allotted D-KCC 10606.
13. The Complainants opted for a 'Construction Linked Payment Plan' for making the payments towards the Commercial Shop in question. The Opposite Party vide their Allotment Letter offered the provisional allotment of Shop No. SP-22/5/22-125 on the Second Floor in the Opposite Party's Project to the Complainants. It is pertinent to mention that the Basic Price of the Shop in question was Rs.16,00,000/- excluding EDC, IDC, PLC, VAT and all other statutory charges. 39
14. Subsequently, the Opposite Party executed a Buyer's Agreement in favour of the Complainants on 26.12.2009.
15. Thereafter the Complainants stopped making payments towards the said Commercial Shop without any Intimation or reasonable explanation. After granting considerable time to the Complainants and waiting for a considerable time, the Opposite Party was constrained to issue various Demand Letters calling upon the Complainants to make all payments and clear their outstanding dues. However, the Complainants failed to make payments.
16. The Opposite Party was thereafter constrained to send a Pre-cancellation Letter dated 19.07.2013 of Provisional Allotment due to the regular defaults of the Complainants in making outstanding payments, which was also not complied with by the Complainants.
17. It was further submitted that the Complainants are not 'consumer' as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainants have booked the DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
Commercial Shop in question solely for commercial purposes and therefore, the Complainants do not fall under the definition of 'Consumer'. It is denied by the OP that till date no construction has been carried out. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed"
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 22.12.2022, whereby it held as under:
"20.The complainants booked a flat in the project of OP is an admitted case as evident from the evidence of the parties. The complainants had relied upon the flat buyer agreement and receipt of payment Rs.11,35,400/-(Rupees Eleven Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred). The copies of receipt of the above amount issued by OP have been also filed by complainants. The receipts are not controverted by OP.
21.It was contended on the behalf of the complainants that OP was deficient in providing its services. It was also submitted that complainants had paid the cost of the flat l.e. Rs.11,35,400/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Only) to the OP but OP failed to deliver the property even after 10 years of the agreement.
22. It was also argued that according to article 4 clause 1 of the Builder-Buyer Agreement, the construction was to be completed within 24 months from the date of commencement of project but OP failed to hand over possession of ) the flat even till on the filing of the complaint. It was further submitted that the prolonged delay in construction and handing over possession amounts to deficiency in service. It was also argued that the opposite party was under contractual obligation to constructs the property within 24 months from the date of DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
commencement of the project, but it failed to do so. It was also argued that the builder/OP thus failed to comply with the terms of article 4 clause 1 of the agreement.
23. The plea taken by Learned Counsel for the OP/TDI that the Complainants is/are not a 'Consumer' as he had booked the shop for investment purpose or earning gain, is completely unsustainable in the light of the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31, in which the principle laid down is that the onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate ie. in the purchase and sale of plots/flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to the Opposite Party, which in the instant case they had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish their case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complainants is/are 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act.
24. With regard to the preliminary objection taken by the TDI that due to existence of Arbitration Clause in the Agreement, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S Emaar MGF Land Limited vs Aftab Singh - 1 (2019) CPJ 5 (SC), has laid down the law that the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement does not bar the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the Complaint.
As such, the said ground does not hold any merits.
25. As regard deficiency in services, Hon;ble Supreme Court has held in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. V. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. 2020(3) RCR Civil 544 that the failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated time frame, amounts to deficiency.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
26. It was also held in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 2 1994(1) SCC 243 by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a person hires the services of a builder, or a contractor, for the construction of a house or a flat, and the same is for a consideration, it is a "service" as defined by Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation.
27. After giving our careful thought to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for parties, we are of the view that admittedly, there is inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the shop in question which amounts to deficiency in service.
28. It is to be noted Section 2 (47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines 'unfair trade practices' in the following words: "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice" and includes any of the practices enumerated therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in above case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. k. Gupta, 1994 (1) SCC 243, that when possession is not handed over within the stipulated period, the delay so caused is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice.
29.It is also pertinent to note Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in Fortune Infrastructure and Anr. Vs. Trevor D':Lima and Ors.2018(5) SCC 442 that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flat and they are entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
Thus, as the services of OP were deficient, the complainants was justified in claiming refund of the amount deposited by him with compensation. We are further of the view that the cause of action being the continuing one as the amount advanced by complainants were not refunded neither possession of the shop was handed over to him, the complaint is within the period of limitation. As regards the contention of OP that complainants is not a consumer, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is to be noted that a mere allegation has been made in the WS by OP, In this regard no evidence was brought on record to prove the sald contention. We are thus of the view that the same is without merits.
30. As regards the contention of OP that complaint is not maintainable, the complainants ought to have filed a civil suit as he is seeking recovery of money. In this regard to be noted that the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act are additional remedies apart from the other remedies including those provided by special statues. The availability of alternative remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590-20 M/s Imperia Structures Limited Vs. Anil Patni and Anr.
31.We thus, hold that OP was guilty of deficiency in services. We also find that Complainants was/were not at fault for the delay which occurred in the completion of project. We further hold that there are no reasons to justify the delay in completion of the project.
32. We accordingly direct OP/TDI Infrastructure to refund the amount Rs.11,35,400/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred Only), to the complainants along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
realization within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. We also award compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants, due to deficiency in service of the causing harassment and mental agony to the complainants including the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by OP. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks OP is directed to pay interest @18% p.a. for the delayed period. We also award Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as cost on litigation."
3. The Appellant has preferred the present Appeal against the aforementioned order on the grounds that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondents defaulted in making payments towards the property in question and failed to adhere to the payment schedule despite various reminders and demand notices issued by the Appellant. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that where the allottees default in making payments, the builder has the right to cancel the allotment and refund the amount deposited by the allottees after deducting the earnest money. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the record and has erroneously directed the Appellant to refund the entire amount along with interest.
4. The Appellant further submitted that the District Commission erred in awarding an exorbitant rate of interest @12% per annum on the amount deposited by the Respondents, as the same is penal in nature. Lastly, he contended that there was no deficiency in DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
service on the part of the Appellant as it had fulfilled its contractual obligations under the agreement and had offered possession of the said shop for fit-out vide letter dated 08.05.2018. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the Appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated 22.12.2022.
5. The Respondents have filed reply to the present appeal and denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.
6. The Appellant has filed its written arguments and reiterated the contentions raised in the present Appeal. It has further relied upon the following judgments:
a. Paramount Digital Colour Lab vs. AGFA (India) (P) Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 81;
b. Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC Online NCDRC 3;
c. Madan Kumar Singh vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 79;
d. Satish Batra vs. Sudhir Rawal, (2013) 1 SCC 345; and e. Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. vs. Hiralal Chanda, 2021 SCC Online 3448.
7. The Respondents have also filed their written arguments and denied all the contentions raised by the Appellant.
8. We have perused the Appeal, reply of the Respondent, Impugned Order and written arguments of both the parties.
DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
9. The main question for consideration is whether the District Commission erred in holding Appellant deficient in providing its services to the Respondents?
10. The expression Deficiency of Service has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported at 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
"23. ...The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act 1986 as:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
24. A failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. There is a fault, shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the contract in relation to the service. The expression 'service' in Section 2(1) (o) means a service of any description which is made DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with (among other things) housing construction. Under Section 14(1)(e), the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to directing the opposite party inter alia to remove the deficiency in the service in question. Intrinsic to the jurisdiction which has been conferred to direct the removal of a deficiency in service is the provision of compensation as a measure of restitution to a flat buyer for the delay which has been occasioned by the developer beyond the period within which possession was to be handed over to the purchaser. Flat purchasers suffer agony and harassment, as a result of the default of the developer. Flat purchasers make legitimate assessments in regard to the future course of their lives based on the flat which has been purchased being available for use and occupation. These legitimate expectations are belied when the developer as in the present case is guilty of a delay of years in the fulfilment of a contractual obligation."
11. The above dicta reflect that failure on the part of the developer to deliver possession of the apartment to the purchaser within the contractually stipulated period constitutes a deficiency in service.
12. On perusal of record, it is not disputed by the contesting parties that in year 2006, the Respondents had booked a unit in the project DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
namely Rodeo Drive Mall of the Appellant situated at Sonepat, Haryana. It is further clear from the record that the Respondents had made a total payment of Rs.11,35,400/- towards the said unit.
13. It is also admitted by the Appellant in paragraph 3(d) of the written statement filed before the District Commission that a Buyer's Agreement dated 26.12.2009 was executed between the parties. As per Article 4 of the said Agreement, the Appellant was to hand over possession of the unit within 24 months from the date of sanctioning of the building plan. However, the Appellant failed to deliver possession till date.
14. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Commission rightly held the Appellant deficient in service for not handing over possession within the promised period and retaining the hard- earned money of the Respondents for years.
15. The Appellant further submitted that the Respondents had defaulted in making payments as per the agreed plan. On perusal of the record, it is evident from the record that the Respondents had already paid Rs.11,35,400/- out of the basic sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-. Moreover, it is also clear that the Appellant had caused an inordinate delay in starting construction and the stipulated date of possession had long expired. Therefore, the Complainants cannot be expected to continue making further payments without knowing the construction status or possession timeline when the promised date had already passed. Therefore, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025 M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
Appellant that the Complainants had defaulted in making the payment.
16. The Appellant contended that the District Commission erred in awarding 12% interest on the refund amount and 18% in case of delay, which is penal in nature. We are of the considered view that the Respondents had booked the unit in 2006 with the legitimate expectation of getting possession within 24 months. However, till date, neither possession has been delivered nor has their money been refunded. The Respondents have suffered in both ways as they did not get the unit whose value has appreciated over the years and have also been deprived of their hard-earned money. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the rate of 12% interest awarded by the District Commission is justifiable, fair, and cannot be said to be penal in nature.
17. Consequently, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. As a result, we uphold the judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VI, New-Delhi District, M-Block First Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi- 110002.
18. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 17 FA NO./79/2023 D.O.D.: 06.11.2025
M/S. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS MR. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.
19. Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
20. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
21. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
06.11.2025 LR-ZA DISMISSED PAGE 17 OF 17