LAWS(NCD)-2024-5-83

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs. ANJU GUPTA

Decided On May 14, 2024
Tdi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
ANJU GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') challenges the order dtd. 30/4/2019 of the State Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 853 of 2017 partly allowing the complaint. This order will also dispose of First Appeal No. 1619 of 2109 filed by the respondent as a cross appeal against the same order that is impugned in FA 1561 of 2019. As both appeals emanate from the same order and have the same set of facts, they are being disposed by way of a common order. For reasons of convenience, the facts are taken from FA 1561 of 2019.

(2.) The delay of 49 days in the filing of this complaint and of 60 days in FA 1561 of 2019 is condoned for the reasons stated in the respective applications for the condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

(3.) Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that under a scheme for conversion of cinemas to multiplex theatres of the administration of UT, Chandigarh, appellant 2 entered into a Development Agreement on 29/3/2005 with appellant 1 to construct a multiplex called 'TDI Mall' , Sector 17-A, Chandigarh after demolishing one Jagat cinema as per plan dtd. 15/6/2005. One Rajesh Goyal (respondent 5) entered into a Buyer's Agreement with appellants 1 and 2 on 19/6/2006 for shop no. FF-16, First Floor in this mall for a sale consideration of Rs.45.00 lakhs subject to the final area being determined on completion of construction. As per Clause 8 of the Buyer's Agreement, possession was promised by 31/3/2007 with grace period up to 30/9/2007 (i.e. within 15 months) subject to force majeure conditions including orders of the relevant authorities and Chandigarh Administration. Clause 29 further contemplated that seller (appellants) will convey the unit on receipt of requisite permissions. The unit was transferred by Rajesh Goyal to respondent 1 by sale agreement dtd. 29/9/2008 endorsed by appellants on 3/11/2008. Appellants 1 and 2 paid Rs.1,84,767.00 by cheque as compensation for delayed possession on 26/3/2010 to respondent 5 and Rs.2,11,500.00 on 8/12/2012. According to respondent 1, allotment was unilaterally changed from FF-16 to FF-15 and appellant conveyed on 17/6/2015 that possession for fit-outs would be done as soon as Occupation Certificate (OC) which was in the process of being issued, was received. Respondent 1 intimated, vide letter dtd. 16/7/2015, her willingness to accept possession only after OC was available. According to the appellants, the process of the OC and handing over of possession was delayed due to various reasons on account of notifications and orders of the UT Administration, including a show cause notice dtd. 17/8/2010 regarding plan violations which was regularized through payment of compounding fee on 25/2/2011. NOC from the Fire Department was obtained on 2/9/2013 on which date sanction of building plan was completed. However, on 8/8/2014 due to directions by the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee the OC was delayed further till 12/1/2016 and possession offered on 18/1/2016 which was not taken by respondent 1.