AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 13.09.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in the appeals, FA No. 770/2007, "Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) vs Dr. Rama Sofat" and FA No. 773/2007, "PUDA vs. Sunil Kumar Gupta" vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the order passed by the District Forum on 15.02.2007, in Consumer Complaint No. 334/2004 of Dr. Rama Sofat and Consumer Complaint No. 262/2004 of Sunil Kumar Gupta, allowing the said complaints, was upheld.
Briefly stated, the matter involves the charging of extension fee by the OP PUDA from the complainants on the ground that they failed to raise construction on the plots allotted to them by the OPs, within the time prescribed. In the consumer complaints, the complainants stated that the demand raised by PUDA for the non-construction fee was not in accordance with rules/regulations on the subject. The issue had been the subject of litigation in many cases in different courts and as per the decisions taken in those cases, PUDA was not entitled to charge the said amount from the complainants.
The District Forum vide their order dated 15.02.2007, allowed the said complaints and held that PUDA had charged excess amount from them which was against the rules. They directed the OP PUDA to recalculate the amount and issue demand notice, if any, or to issue the refund order after the said calculations. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP PUDA challenged the same by way of appeals before the State Commission. However, both the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order, being aggrieved against which, the OP PUDA is before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
The notice of the petitions were duly issued to the respondents, in response to which the respondent/complainant Dr. Rama Sofat replied that due to ill health, she could not appear before this Commission and the matter be decided as per the letter already sent by her to the office of the petitioner. In the other revision petition (RP No. 392/2013), the respondent/complainant put in appearance through counsel, but on the date of hearing, none was present on behalf of the said respondent.
The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/OP PUDA stated that the issue had already been decided in judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Commission from time to time, and it had been held that the consumer fora could not go into the question of charging extension fee from the complainants / allottees. The Ld. Counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " HUDA vs. Sunita " [(2005) 2 SCC 479], in support of her arguments. She has further referred to an order passed by this Commission in RP No. 390/2013, decided on 13.01.2016, " PUDA vs. Sanjiv Vashist ", in which, relying upon the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " HUDA vs. Sunita (supra), " it was held that the consumer fora had no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of composition and extension fee. The consumer complaints were ordered to be dismissed in that case.
We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
It is clear from the facts stated above that the matter is no more res-integra in view of the orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " HUDA vs. Sunita " (supra), and the orders passed by this Commission as narrated above. In another case, " PUDA vs. Santosh Arora " [RP No. 2466/2013 decided on 05.05.2014], this Commission passed a similar order, relying upon the order in the case " HUDA vs. Sunita " (supra) and the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " PUDA vs. Narinder Singh Nanda " [CA No. 8314-8315/2010]. In the said order " PUDA vs. Narinder Singh Nanda " (supra), the earlier order passed by this Commission in RP No. 2125/2006 in " Narinder Singh Nanda vs. PUDA " was set aside.
Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, the present revision petitions are allowed and the order passed by the fora below are set aside, being not in accordance with law. Both the consumer complaints are ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.