AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party.
BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for purchase of a shop premises. Agreement is dated 6.3.1998 and possession of the shop was to be delivered in June, 1998 whereas it was actually delivered in January, 2001, hence alleging deficiency in service, resulting from delay of 858 days in delivery of possession, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/respondent to pay Rs. 40,000/- as notional compensation along with cost of Rs. 1,500/-. The appellant/complainant, not being satisfied with this relief, has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not disputed hence not being reproduced. The only point which needs to be gone through is whether the reasons propounded by the respondent for delay in delivery are good grounds for delayed delivery of possession or not? Clause 5 of the agreement is important hence reproduced below: "5. The vendors shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession of the said premises by the date aforesaid by reason of delay in the completion of the said building for all or any of the following reasons- (i) Non-availability of steel, cement or other building materials, electric power or water supply. (ii) By reason of war, civil commotion or any act of Goa. (iii) As a result of any notices, orders, rules, regulations, notifications, statutes, bye-laws and so on of the Government or of any other local, public or other authority or body or of a Court of Law or Tribunal. (iv) On account of the Government not granting water connection or the authorities not granting completion certificate or occupation certificate, and/or. (v) Any reason or circumstances whatsoever beyond the control of the vendors or of unforeseen or unavoidable nature."
(Emphasis supplied)
THERE is no disputing fact that the respondent applied for connection of electricity on 21.7.1998 and on account of stay by the Bombay High Court, the electricity connection could not be given till 1.6.2000. The water connection was also consequently delayed. Upon getting these facilities a request for occupancy certficate was made which was granted after delay of one year by the Competent Authority only on 18.1.2001 and possession was given in June, 2001 itself. All these points have been very elaborately discussed by the State Commission in its order and we are in full agreement with the reasoning given by the State Commission in this regard. We also see no merit in demanding liquidated damages by the appellant/complainant as per Clause 6 of the agreement. That clause is applicable only in terms of termination of the agreement which is not the case here, hence Clause 6 is not applicable here.
THERE has been some delay in applying for electrcity connection, delay in initiating formalities with regard to seeking water connection and occupancy certificate could not be made unless there was electricity. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances the State Commission has limited the awarded compensation to Rs. 40,000/- which in our view, is just, proper and equitable. We see no ground to enhance the amount of compensation keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above. We find no merit in his appeal, hence dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.