Estate Officer, Puda vs Tripta Rani Puri

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 13.02.2014, whereby the said Commission held that there was deficiency in services on the part of the petitioner in demanding excess amount towards non -construction charges, from the complainant/respondent. The District Forum, vide its order dated 21.09.2011, had held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim Rs. 1,40,025/ - for the period from 2005 to 2009 from the complainant on account of non -construction charges and accordingly directed refund of the said amount to the complainant. The complaint, filed by the complainant, was partly allowed by holding that PUDA will be entitled to charge non -construction fee only from 12.06.2005 to 20.7.2009.

THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since non -construction charges are levied by the petitioner, on the basis of statutory rules, such a demand cannot amount to deficiency in the services rendered to the allottee and consequently, no complaint before the Consumer Forum was maintainable. The learned counsel has, in this regard, drawn our attention to the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8314 -8315 of 2010, PUDA (now GLADA) vs. Narinder Singh Nanda and connected appeal decided on 20.02.2014. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that Civil Appeal Nos. 8314 -8315/2010, 6087/2013, 8903/2011, 8904/2011 and 8905/2011 were allowed/disposed of in terms of the earlier decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in HUDA Vs. Sunita, 2005 2 SCC 479with liberty to the respondent to approach the appropriate forum. The decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sunita case , to the extent it is relevant for our purpose reads as under: - "3. After perusing the order of the National Commission and hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that the National Commission has held that the statutory obligations of HUDA and plot -holder under the provisions of the HUDA Act and the Regulations are not acts or omissions constituting "deficiency in service" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. 4. On the above finding, the National Commission had no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of "composition fee" and "extension fee" made by HUDA from the respondent complainant.

On the National Commission''s own reasoning and the interpretation of provisions of law with which we agree, this appeal deserves to be allowed. In our opinion, the National Commission having held that it has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demands made by HUDA ought to have set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission setting aside the demand of "composition fee" and "extension fee". We, therefore, allow this appeal upholding the order of the National Commission. We set aside the order of the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent of quashing the demand of "composition fee" of Rs. 53,808/ - and extension fee" of Rs. 6,300/ -. 6. We, however, make it clear that the respondent complainant may resort to any other appropriate remedy for questioning the aforesaid demands if they are not in accordance with law. The appeal, thus, stands allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above."

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court also allowed the writ petition which some other respondents before it had filed before the High Court and recorded the undertaking of their counsel not to claim any refund of the extension fee already paid. It would thus be seen that the view taken by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sunita case was applied in the above referred cases as well. Thus, the view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court was that the demand of composition fee and extension fee by HUDA was an act done by HUDA in discharge of its statutory obligations under HUDA Act and regulations framed thereunder. Since the aforesaid decision was also applied in the cases against PUDA, it is quite obvious that such demand by PUDA had also been held to be a statutory obligation of PUDA. Consequently, raising such a demand cannot be said to be an act of deficiency in the services rendered to the complainant.

THE complainant/respondent has chosen not to appear before us despite service of notice upon her. She has sent written submissions dealing with the merits of the complaint filed by her before the District Forum. However, the aforesaid written submissions do not deal with the issue as to whether raising such a demand would constitute deficiency in services by PUDA or not. Therefore, we find no assistance from the written submissions submitted by the respondent/complainant.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are hereby set aside. The respondent/complainant shall, however, be at liberty to resort to any other appropriate remedy for questioning the demand in question, if the same was not in accordance with law.