E-Paper
Consumer forum issues bailable warrants against MD, directors of TDI Infratech
Developer failed to comply with state consumer commission’s February order to hand over possession of a plot to an 85-year-old Mohali man
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has issued bailable warrants against the managing director (MD) and six directors of TDI Infratech Limited, Mohali, for failing to comply with its February order to give possession of a plot to a 85-year-old man.
The managing director and six directors have been summoned before the panel on September 30. The directions for bailable warrants against them have been issued to the Delhi commissioner of police as well as the Mohali senior superintendent of police.
The commission order read, “Since these proceedings are of criminal nature, the managing director and six directors of TDI Infratech were required to be present in person. But they have not come. Hence, bailable warrants in the sum of ₹5 lakh with one surety of the like amount be issued against the managing director and six directors.”
COMMISSION’S FEBRUARY RULING
Disposing of a complaint by JPS Kanwar, resident of Sector 70, Mohali, commission president justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal and member Kiran Sibal in February had directed TDI Infratech to deliver possession of Plot Number 580 in Sector 118, TDI City, Mohali, or any other plot in its vicinity, and pay annual interest at 12% on the ₹18 lakh paid for the plot with effect from March 2012 till the date of delivery of possession of plot.
The developer was also directed to pay a lump sum amount of ₹30,000 as compensation for causing the elderly man mental agony and harassment, and for litigation costs.
Kanwar had submitted before the commission that the company informed him on January 9, 2016 that Plot Number 580 in Sector 118 cannot be allotted to him as the state government had failed to acquire that portion of the land, and offered to allot another plot to him.
Though Kanwar insisted on getting a plot in Sector 118 itself, the developer offered one in Sector 116.
Allowing the complaint, the commission had held that the company directors were lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other, and re-allotment of plots was delay tactics adopted by the directors, which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
