SURENDRANATH KAMBALI Vs. ABELIN MARSHAL DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. Therefore misc.application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is not intentional or deliberate. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly delay is condoned.

(2.) This appeal is filed by the original O.P. in consumer complaint no.105/2007 passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum, whereby Forum below directed O.P. as under:-

(3.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- Complainant booked one shop in the year 1988 admeasuring 272 sq.ft. in the building no.1 at village Manda, Taluka Kalgaon, District Thane with O.P. for total consideration of Rs.89,760/-. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from 26/7/1988 to 27/2/1993. Agreement for Sale between the parties was executed on 06/07/1992. Complainant made regular enquiries about the progress of the proposed construction of the building, but O.P. gave only assurances to fulfill his obligations. On persistent demand for the possession of flat by the complainant, opponent informed that he is not in a position to proceed with the completion of the sale with the complainant as due to change in the Town planning of the Kalyan Municipal Corporation, a new building was constructed in front of the plot where the opponent building was to be constructed on the road side, wherein complainant had booked the shop. Therefore opponent cancelled plan of the shop and offered to the complainant a residential flat in lieu of shop. Accordingly, complainant visited the site, but she found that there was only a structure with wall without window frame and door frame and without tiles standing on the said plot. Therefore she immediately informed to the opponent and refused to accept the flat in lieu of the shop.