LAWS(NCD)-2024-1-74

SURENDER SETHI Vs. MGF DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Decided On January 29, 2024
SURENDER SETHI Appellant
V/S
Mgf Development Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Complaint under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") alleges deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in delay in handing over the possession of a shop booked by the Complainants in "The Metropolitan Mall", Amritsar, a project developed and executed by the Opposite Party.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the Complainants had booked shop No.UG-30 on the Upper Ground Floor of the "Metropolitan Mall" admeasuring 967.21 sq. (covered area 604.50 sq.ft.) at a sale price of Rs.1,16,06,520.00 in order to open a footwear shop for earning their livelihood. As per the Agreement dtd. 3/7/2006 entered into between the parties, the shop was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of sanction of building plans and it was agreed that in case the possession was not handed over during this period, the Opposite Party would compensate the Complainants @ Rs.35.00 per sq. mtr. Per month for the period of delay. Payments were to be made as per schedule of payments linked to the construction and accordingly, the Complainants paid a total of Rs.70,86,216.00 between 3/7/2006 and 27/2/2008.

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by way of a written statement by the Opposite Party. While it was admitted that shop No.UG-030 in the proposed "Metropolitan Mall", Amritsar had been allotted by it to the Complainants, it was contended that the delay was on account of litigation between the Opposite Party and the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) with regard to the land on which the construction was proposed. The ASI had claimed that the land was in a prohibited/regulated area of Company Bagh, Amritsar and that the land was protected under Rule 38 of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959. The matter had travelled from the Civil Judge (Judicial Division Amritsar) to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh and the Opposite Party No.1 had been restrained from carrying on any construction activity in the said area vide orders dtd. 9/1/2008 and 30/5/2008. In a subsequent Appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Appeal No. 2464 of 2010 had again, vide order dtd. 16/9/2010, restrained the Opposite Party from undertaking any construction. This matter was still sub judice and therefore, the delay was not on account of any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and was accordingly, covered under force majeure conditions.