National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Taneja Developers & ... vs Deepak Kumar & Anr. on 3 June, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 26/02/2016 in Complaint No. 77/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. M/S. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, 9, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DEEPAK KUMAR & ANR. S/O. SH NAKLI RAM, R/O. 210/1, SECTOR-44-A, CHANDIGARH-47 PUNJAB 2. TANEJA DEVELOPERS & INFRATRUCTURE LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SCO 51-52, SECTOR-118,CHANDIGARH-KHARAR ROAD, NH-21, TDI CITY, MOHALI CHANDIGARH, PUNJBA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate
Mr. Harshavardhan Singh
Rathore, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 03 Jun 2016 ORDER
In this first appeal, challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 26.2.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015, vide which, the State Commission passed an interim order, giving directions to the appellant to produce certain record before them in respect of the issue of allotment of plot in Sector-118, TDI City, Mohali, Punjab to the complainant/respondent no.1, Deepak Kumar.
2. The said consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission saying that the complainant-Deepak Kumar booked a plot measuring 250 sq. yards with the appellant/opposite party for self-living and deposited various amounts with them from time to time. The OPs allotted plot no.501 to the complainant at TDI City at Mohali (Punjab), vide letter of allotment dated 28.5.2008, but they failed to give physical possession of the plot by the end of 2010, as promised. The OPs sent a letter dated 15.9.2009 to the complainant that his plot no.501 had been changed to plot no.451, but the location of the new plot was almost the same. However, the OPs failed to deliver the said plot as well, saying that the land required for road connecting the area of the plot of the complainant, was under acquisition. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the OPs to allot the same plot or some other plot in Sector-118, TDI City, Mohali, Punjab and also to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited for the said plot and a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs on account of increase in the cost of construction, Rs.2 lakhs for mental harassment and Rs.33,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. A perusal of the impugned interim order passed by the State Commission indicates that the OPs took the plea before the State Commission that no plot was available with them in Sector-118 for allotment to the complainant. The State Commission asked them to produce record, giving details of the persons who were allotted plots in Sector-118 and the dates on which such persons had given applications for allotment of the plots. The OP was also asked to provide the dates on which the said allotments were made and to indicate whether the total sale price had been paid by such allottees. Being aggrieved against the interim order, the OP has filed the present appeal.
4. During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the appellant/OP argued that there was no need for the State Commission to call for the records, as directed vide the impugned order, as the OP had already made offer for allotment of alternative plot to the complainant. The complainant could not be allotted plot in Sector-118, because of the change in the lay-out plan of the Project by the competent authority. The impugned order should, therefore, be set aside and the OP should be allowed to provide an alternative plot to the complainant.
5. A careful perusal of the material on record and the interim order passed by the State Commission indicates that the appellant/OP allotted plot no.501 in Sector -118, TDI City, Mohali to the complainant, which was later changed to plot no.451. However, the appellant/OP is now taking the plea that they were not in a position to offer any plot in Sector-118 to the complainant, because of the change in the lay-out plan for the Project.
6. The State Commission, vide impugned order, raised an issue whether the persons who had applied for the plots in that Sector, subsequent to the complainant, could have been allotted plots before giving a plot to the complainant in the same sector. In order to determine that question, the State Commission called for the record, as stated above, from the OPs. In my opinion, there is no justification on the part of the OPs, not to provide that information to the State Commission. It is necessary to decide the issue, whether the persons who made applications subsequently, were provided plots in the said sector-118, causing prejudice to the rights of the complainant. The State Commission has fixed the matter for arguments after obtaining the said information from the OPs. There was therefore, no valid ground for the appellant to have filed the present appeal and delay the matter unnecessarily. In case, the complainant had refused to accept the allotment of alternative plot offered by the OPs, he cannot be forced to accept the alternative plot, as per the desire of the appellant/OP. the State Commission has to determine therefore, whether any deficiency in service has been caused by the OPs in making denial of allotment to the complainant in preference to the other applicants.
7. Based on the discussion above, I do not find any justification to make any modification in the impugned order of the State Commission in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order dated 26.2.2016 is upheld.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the State Commission for proceeding with the matter further, after giving due opportunity to the parties to plead their respective cases before them.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER