In a case involving TDI Infratech Limited, the issue revolves around the alleged failure to deliver possession of an allotted plot to the Complainants, Respondents No. 1 to 3. The case highlights a dispute concerning deficiencies in service, unfair trade practices, and the complexity of property acquisition. Despite the Petitioner’s arguments surrounding the acquisition process, the legal authorities have ruled in favor of the Complainants, compelling the Petitioner to fulfill its obligations.

The Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainants, Respondents No. 1 to 3, against the Petitioner, TDI Infratech Limited, citing a failure to deliver possession of the booked and allotted plot. The Petitioner, along with other parties, contended that the acquisition of land surrounding the plot was incomplete, particularly in a "critical gap area." As the acquisition had not been finalized and the surrounding land was still under litigation, the Petitioner argued that it was unable to deliver possession of the plot to the Complainants.

Upon hearing the complaint, the District Commission concluded that the Petitioner failed to provide a clear timeline for the possession of the plot and failed to disclose the true status of the project to the Complainants. This led to an accusation of unfair trade practices. The District Commission further determined that the Petitioner’s failure to deliver possession within a reasonable time (three years, ending in 2014) constituted a deficiency in service. Therefore, the Commission directed that the physical possession of the plot be handed over within 90 days, or, if this was not possible, an alternative plot of the same size and in the same sector should be provided, complete with basic facilities and amenities.

Both the Petitioner and the Complainants filed appeals. The Petitioner contested the District Commission's order, while the Complainants sought additional relief, particularly in terms of compensation. The State Commission, in its order dated 29.05.2024, upheld the District Commission’s ruling, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal. However, it partly allowed the Complainants’ appeal by awarding delay compensation at a rate of 9% from the committed date of delivery until the actual date of possession. Additionally, a compensation of Rs. 75,000 was awarded for mental agony, along with a cost of Rs. 35,000 for litigation expenses.

TDI Infratech Limited challenged the State Commission’s order through a Revision Petition, reiterating its argument that the plot could not be delivered due to incomplete land acquisition in the surrounding area. The Petitioner also made an alternative offer, suggesting three other plots as replacements, which were located in remote, underdeveloped areas. However, the Respondents rejected the offer, arguing that these alternative plots were inferior in terms of location and value, and did not match the original plot in Sector 118, which was specifically chosen for its desirability.

The Petitioner continued to argue that the "critical gap area," which includes the land surrounding the original plot, was still subject to pending acquisition processes, preventing development and accessibility. The Respondents, on the other hand, contested this claim, arguing that the plot itself was not under acquisition and had been cleared for development, as evidenced by the layout and zoning plans. They also pointed out that the development of other plots in the area had already been completed, thus undermining the Petitioner’s justification for the delay.

Upon review, the legal authorities determined that the argument regarding the critical gap area was flawed. The acquisition process had already been finalized, and the Petitioner’s claims of incomplete acquisition were found to be unfounded. The plot was available for possession, and the Petitioner had not made sufficient efforts to ensure its accessibility. Furthermore, the offer of alternative plots was deemed inequitable, as the plots were located far from the original plot and did not meet the Respondents’ needs.

The Revision Petition filed by TDI Infratech Limited was ultimately rejected, with the court upholding the earlier orders. The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to agreed-upon timelines and the legal obligation of developers to deliver possession in accordance with the terms outlined in the allotment agreement. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of transparency, timely delivery, and fair trade practices in the real estate industry, highlighting the legal recourse available to consumers facing delays and deficiencies.