123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 JASPAL KAUR JOHAL AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners Versus M S SHOURYA TOWER PVT LTD AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Saransh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

* * * * *

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the National Commission) dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short, the State Commission) dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure P-11), has been dismissed on account of delay of

1453 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are Non-Resident Indians residing in United Kingdom. They are over 75 years of age. A consumer complaint had been preferred by them before the State Commission, which was being pursued by Sh. Man Singh, who was the Personal Assistant of their family friend, namely, Sh. Sanjay Dutta. He further submits that said Sanjay Dutta was suffering from cancer and later, he passed away on 21.05.2019. He, therefore, submits that sufficient cause had been made out to condone the delay but the National Commission had erroneously dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) on account of delay and laches. He further submits that there was a delay of around 700 days in preferring the appeal and the period of approximately two years of Covid-19 pandemic ought to have been excluded while computing the period of limitation in terms of the office order issued by the National Commission on 14.01.2022 (Annexure P- 16). Therefore, the delay of 1453 days ought to have been condoned by the National Commission.

3. Heard.

4. The petitioners are stated to have booked a flat in the new housing complex namely ‘Lotus Tower Surya Enclave’ in Jalandhar, which was being developed and constructed by the respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioners had been allotted flat No.502 in ‘E-1’ Tower and an allotment letter had been issued to the petitioners on 03.05.2008 after the payment of Rs.23,80,548/-. The possession was to be delivered to the petitioners by August, 2012. However, in 2011, the agents of the respondents No.1 and 2 had approached the petitioners and intimated them that construction of the E-1 Tower where the flat was originally allotted to the petitioners, would not take place. In order to redress their grievance, the respondents No.1 and 2 had offered the petitioners an alternative flat No.702 in ‘J-1’ Tower for an additional amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. The allotment letter for the alternative flat in ‘J-1’ Tower was issued on 23.09.2011 and thus, the petitioners are stated to have paid a total sum of Rs.38,30,550/- to respondents No.1 and 2. However, as per respondents No.1 and 2, the petitioners had only made a payment of Rs.14,59,630/- and Rs.1,77,561/- remained to be paid. There was a dispute with regard to the allotment of the flat and the petitioners had preferred a consumer complaint before the State Commission. In their prayer before the State Commission, they sought the following relief against the present respondents;

(i) to deliver the possession of flat J-1/702 or of any other alternative flat to complainants;

(ii) further to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.38,30,550/- from August, 2012 till actual delivery of possession;

(iii) to pay penal interest @ 18% on deposited amount; to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for mental harassment, besides cost of litigation.

The State Commission by the order dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure P-11) had partly accepted the said complaint and directed only refund of Rs.14,59,630/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 12% per annum, with a further direction to pay Rs.50