Puda (Now Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority) vs Santosh Arora

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 787 of 2008 - PUDA (Now Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority) & Anr. Vs. Dr. Santosh Arora by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was allotted Plot No. 3001, measuring 400 sq. yds. in Sector 38 -39, Samrala Road, Ludhiana by OP/petitioners vide allotment letter dated 13.10.1999 and entire sale price of the plot was paid. Complainant applied for no dues certificate, but OP vide letter dated 12.8.2005 raised an illegal demand of Rs.1,04,894/ - for the period from 2003 to 2005 on account of non -construction against the rules and regulations. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for quashing the demand. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall with the purview of consumer as demand of ''''extension fee '''' is not a deficiency. Allotment of plot was admitted, but it was submitted that as complainant was required to complete the building within the period of 3 years from the date of allotment letter and as he failed to comply with the terms and conditions, demand raised by OP was legal and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to charge non -construction fee in accordance with rule 13 of 1995 Act. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that charging of ''''extension fee '''' does not fall within the purview of service and complaint was not maintainable and further submitted that petitioner was charging ''''extension fee '''' as per amended rules; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

FIRST of all, it is to be seen whether charging of ''''extension fee '''' falls within the purview of service under Consumer Protection Act or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court delivered in (2005) 2 SCC 479 - HUDA Vs. Sunita which has also been referred by learned State Commission in which it was held that : ''''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. 5. 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.6300/ -. 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 ''''.

Thus, it becomes clear that charging of extension fee does not fall with the purview of service and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to go into correctness of demands made on account of ''''extension fee ''''. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. 2125 of 2006 - NarinderSingh Nanda Vs. P.U.D.A. in which while referring judgment of Sunita ''s case (Supra) and other cases it was observed that as PUDA has charged ''''extension fee '''' illegally under the Government notifications which were struck down prior to the date of deposit, the complainant was entitled to get interest from the date of deposit of amount of ''''extension fee '''' along with refund of ''''extension fee ''''. This judgement has been referred by Apex Court in C.A. No. 8314 -15/2010 - PUDA Vs. Narinder Singh Nanda.

AS Hon ''ble Apex Court in Sunita ''s case (Supra) has held that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of demand for ''''extension fee '''', we hold that complaint was not maintainable before District Forum and complaint was liable to be dismissed.

AS far as merits of the case are concerned, plot was allotted to the complainant on 13.10.1999 and 3 years period for completion of construction was provided. Construction was not completed within this period and in the light of Notification dated 8.10.2001, amending rule 13, demand was raised. Learned District forum also directed OP to charge non -construction fee in accordance with rule 13 of the 1995 Act. As necessary amendment has been incorporated in rule 13, apparently, we do not find any error in raising demand in pursuance to amended rule 13 of the Act; even then, if complainant feels that such demand cannot be raised; he may have resort to any other appropriate remedy for quashing the aforesaid demand. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 787 of 2008 - PUDA Vs. Dr. Santosh Arora and order of District Forum dated 16.5.2008 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.