HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sunita

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the DF where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, HUDA.

BREIF facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted a plot by the petitioner in July, 1982. The construction was completed but when the complainant approached the petitioner for occupation certificate, the latter raised a demand of Rs. 6,300/- as extension fee and Rs. 53,808/- as composition fee. As per complainant she had already paid Rs. 36,197/- as extension fee on 4.4.1997. Since there is no violation of the ''plan'' of the honse, no composition fee can be levied. After hearing the parties, the District Forum quashed these two demands and directed the petitioner to issue occupation certificate to the complainant within 15 days. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed - hence this revision petition. The respondent/complainant remained absent inspite of notice-hence proceeded ex parte.

It is the case of the petitioner that the issues raised by the petitioner do not fall within the definition of a consumer-hence the complaint could not have been entertained by the Forums below. On facts, it is his case that the complainant had applied for occupation certificate on 9.7.1998 with some modifications, when this was returned on 13.8.1998 by HUDA, the premises was jointly inspected, variations were found on all floors, hence a composition fee was ordered to be levied, which was communicated to the complainant, who instead of paying up to get the occupation certificates, moved the Consumer Forum. Demand of composition fee is as per law laid down for the purpose. Order of both the lower Forums is bad on facts and law, hence need to be set aside.

WE have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. Section 2(d) defines as to who is a consumer, a ''service'' has been defined in Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no doubt in our mind that activities relating to ''housing construction'' are covered by the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Present is not a case of housing construction by the petitioner/respondent party. In this case, we see two things-one, that, we do not see the complainant hiring the services of the petitioner for any consideration and secondly, the petitioner is performing a statutory function wherein he ensures that the house construction is as per the building laws/bye-laws/regulations. To ensure that building is safe, secure and meets the basic requirements cannot be termed as a service within its meaning as defined in CPA, 1986. In our view services of the petitioner could not be said to be hired by the complainant in such cirumstances, hence clearly fall outside the purview/jurisdiction. Only to the extent indicated above the petition is allowed. As far as charging of extension fee is concerned, record shows that it has already been charged. No grounds have been shown as to on what basis now Rs. 6,300/- were demanded. WE see no merit in the contention of the petitioner on the point. The petition is disposed of on above terms. No order as to costs. Revision Petition disposed of.