State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dharam Singh vs Tdi Infratech Ltd. on 24 May, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.325 of 2022
Date of Institution : 04.05.2022
Date of Reserve : 16.05.2024
Date of Decision : 24.05.2024
Dharam Singh (aged 61) S/o Sh.Sunder Singh, R/o House No.118,
Sector 111, TDI City, Mohali.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. TDI Infratech Ltd. office at SCO 144-145, Sector 117, TDI City,
Mohali through its Managing Director/ Chairman/authorized
signatory.
IInd Address :
TDI Infratech Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/ Chairman/
authorized signatory having office at 11, Tolstoy Marg, UG
Floor, Vandana Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
........Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 09.02.2022 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member First Appeal No 325 of 2022 2 Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Dharam Singh, In person. For the respondent : Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant-Dharam Singh against the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (in short 'District Commission'), whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act') was dismissed.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case, as mentioned in the complaint are that in 2014, the plot bearing No.118, Sector 111, TDI City-II was allotted to Mr.Amrinder Pal Singh and Mrs.Jatinder Pal Kaur and they were handed over the possession in March, 2015. The opposite party altered the layout plan of the township as per clause 6 of the seller agreement, vide which opposite party added/created one new plot No.118-A in between plot No.117 &
118. Intimation of alternation was not given to the owner of plot No.118 by the opposite party. On 31.01.2018, the complainant and his wife purchased plot No.118 from Mr.Amrinder Pal Singh and Mrs. Jatinder Pal Kaur. After purchasing, the construction could not be completed as the opposite party did not provide First Appeal No 325 of 2022 3 underground sewer till November, 2019. The opposite party from March, 2018 charged Rs.27,499.98p as extension fee for delayed period for non-construction of house within three years. It is averred that the opposite party handed over the plot without installing proper underground sewer and due to alteration in plots the sewerage line became short. As per Clause 15 of the sale deed, the BSP cover the development cost of internal services like sewer line, roads, water line etc. but the opposite party handed over the possession of the plot without completed the services mentioned in the sale deed. The complainant also approached through e-mail dated 26.02.2019 with the request to lay sewer system and he also got issued a legal notice dated 14.09.2020 but to no effect. This act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and compelled the complainant to file the complaint before the District Commission, seeking following reliefs:
i) to refund the extension fee of Rs.23,305/- along with GST totaling Rs.27,499.98ps and to consider the date of possession of H.No.118, Sector 111, TDI City-II, Mohali from November, 2019 when underground sewer was installed by the opposite party;
ii) to pay interest @18% per annum since the date of payment till its realization;
iii) to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental torture and harassment;First Appeal No 325 of 2022 4
3. The District Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant at the admission stage on the ground that there is no prima facie evidence to prove that charges were paid by the appellant/complainant under protest despite of the fact that the appellant/complainant has approached the respondent/opposite party by sending email or through legal notice but no reply was ever given by the respondent/opposite party and that documents are very much on the record.
4. In our view, the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted by the legislature with the benevolent intention for the betterment of the gullible consumers who suffered at the hands of the service providers or sellers of goods and to redress the grievance of the consumer a summarized procedure has been given under the Consumer Protection Act that if somebody approach the Consumer Commission with a grievance that needs to be dealt with by taking on record the evidence and facts instead of deciding the same in a hasty manner at the admission stage and especially when the appellant/complainant placed on record documents to prove his contentions. The findings given by the District Commission are totally cursory in nature, which need elaborate discussion and proper justification for rejection of the complaint. So, keeping in view the fact that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the other facts of the case and pleas raised by the appellant/complainant, it appears that this case needs re- appreciation on behalf of the District Commission and proper First Appeal No 325 of 2022 5 reasoning also. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is hereby allowed and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission with the direction to decide the case afresh on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 24.06.2024.
5. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER May 24th ,2024 parmod