Improvement Trust Bathinda vs Karori Mal Mittal

This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenges the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1459 of 2013 by the petitioner/opposite party/the Trust. 2. Facts as per respondent are as follows. The respondent/complainant was allotted a plot measuring 374 sq. yards in Maharaja Captain Amrinder Singh Transport Nagar vide allotment letter No. 431 dated 28.2.2006 by the petitioner. All the instalments were paid. The last instalment was paid on 4.8.2008 and the sale deed was registered in favour of the respondent on 30.8.2010. The respondent''s application for loan to construct his house was declined by PNB, Bathinda on the ground that construction could not be started due to want of basic amenities such as sewerage system, water supply, street lights etc. which was to be provided by the petitioner/opposite party. The respondent approached the petitioner with the request to complete the civic amenities many times. When he vide letter dated 29.9.2012 asked for a copy of completion certificate, he was instead served with a demand for Rs. 56,100 from the respondent, this being non-construction fee i.e. fee that was to be paid because of failure to construct the house. The respondent again sent a detailed letter dated 12.12.2012 with the request to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 56,100 and supply the term and conditions for sanction of site plan; however, the Trust did not concede, insisting instead on non-construction fee. Aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. 3. The petitioner/opposite party, in reply before the District Forum, submitted that the basic amenities had been duly provided by June, 2010 and further informed that in fact, there was no specific date fixed in any agreement or record for providing these facilities. Vide letter No. 3632 dated 16.12.2009, the respondent was given demarcation of his plot No. 76 and the same was duly confirmed by him. The Trust had demanded Rs. 56,100 as non-construction fee vide letter dated 18.10.2012. Besides, according to the petitioner/opposite party, the complaint was hopelessly time barred, since the original allotment was made on 28.2.2006, and the complaint was filed many years later in 2013. Plea of non-maintainability was also taken, citing Sections 97 and 101 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922. It was therefore, prayed by the Trust that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000. 4. The District Forum accepted the complaint, quashing the demand of Rs. 56,100 raised by the opposite party on account of non-construction charges. It awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation and cost. Further, the Opposite party/Trust was directed to complete the civic amenities in the area in question as per its commitment at the earliest possible and sanction the site plan of the house of the respondent after getting completed the formalities from him, if any. 5. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/opposite party/the Trust and affirmed the order of the District Forum. It found that basic civic amenities had not been provided by the opposite party to the respondent/complainant and held that without providing basic civic amenities, the opposite party-Trust cannot raise the non-construction charges of Rs. 56,100 from the complainant. 6. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner/opposite party has filed the instant revision petition before us with the following prayer : "To call for records of the Appeal No. 1459/2013 from Punjab State Commission. To set aside/quash the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by Hon''ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in appeal No. 1459 of 2013. To pass any other order or orders as this Hon''ble Commission deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. 8. The facts of the case are simple and have already been clearly brought out in paras above. The crux of the matter revolves around two issues: (i) whether basic amenities such as water supply, sewerage system etc. were indeed in place by June, 2010 as claimed by the petitioner/respondent; and (ii) whether the demand for non-construction fee made on the respondent/complainant on 18.10.2012 was justified or not ? 9. From the records, it is clear that the first issue has been dealt with in the District Forum adequately. The Forum, in the interest of justice, appointed a Local Commissioner to physically verify the status of physical infrastructure on site. The Local Commissioner report dated 7.10.2013 complete with photographs and observations, led the District Forum to conclude that the version of the complainant that basic amenities had not been provided in the area where his plot was located was correct. This being so, it followed that the petitioner/opposite party had thereby failed substantially in providing a service it had offered vide its brochure (Ex. C-23) inviting applications. Accordingly, District Forum accepted the complaint, awarding Rs. 10,000 as compensation and cost while quashing the demand of Rs. 56,100 being non-construction fee. It further directed the petitioner/opposite party-Trust to complete the civic amenities in the area in question as per its commitment at the earliest possible an d sanction the site plan of the house of the respondent after getting completed the formalities from him, if any. Subsequently, the State Commission too found no merit in the appeal. 10. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner, wherein the main points in favour of the petitioner agitated before the lower Fora, were re-articulated, we are of the considered view that there has been no material irregularity or illegality in the proceedings and in the appreciation of the facts by both the District Forum and the State Commission. It stands to reason that merely handing over possession of the plot and then not taking sufficient steps to enable construction to take place, and thereafter, taking shelter behind provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, does amount to a serious deficiency in service. It is unfortunate that in this day and age, public authorities, instead of improving their service, hide behind laws whose purpose was surely not to encourage ''deficient'' behaviour. The Improvement Trust, Bhatinda was obligated to provide basic amenities to the plot owners in order that they could then construct If they did not do so, they cannot claim non-construction fee. The object of this fee was to encourage construction, not to protect the Trust and its officials from genuine consumer complaints. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, and the order of the State Commission and the District Forum affirmed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.