PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs GURKIRPAL KAUR

IT is an appeal against the order dated 30.7.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the "District Forum").

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant Smt. Gurkirpal Kaur had purchased Plot No. 3045, Phase IX, Urban Estate, Patiala from Shri S.S. Uppal, the original owner, on 16.11.1996 and the instalments had been duly paid. No due certificate before the sale purchase was also issued by the opposite party. The opposite party had also issued a transfer letter on 10.2.1997. The complainant had submitted building plan for approval on 21.3.1997 and had deposited Rs. 500/- as requisite fee. Before permission for the purchase was granted, non-construction fee till then was deposited by the complainant. The building plan submitted by the complainant was finally approved on 7.4.2000. The opposite party later on asked the complainant to pay Rs. 49,710/- as non-construction charges. According to the complainant, the opposite party had not sanctioned the building plan for three years and only paper possession was given. Thus, according to the complainant, it was not possible for her to raise the construction due to non-sanctioning of plan and, therefore, the demand of Rs. 49,710/- was unjustified and it amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant had sold the plot to one Roshan Lal on 20.5.2002 after obtaining requisite permission from the opposite party on depositing the impugned demand amount under protest reserving the right to recover the same being illegal and unjustified. A prayer was made in the complaint for seeking a direction to the opposite party to refund the said amount with compensation and costs. The opposite party in its reply stated that the complaint was not maintainable and the complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complainant was required to pay non-construction charges for the subsequent period as well and the demand raised by the opposite party was justified.

After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and after going through the evidence on the record, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

THE complainant had urged before the District Forum that vide order dated 16.8.2002, the Estate Officer, PUDA, had ordered the refund of Rs. 23,925/- out of Rs. 49,710/- holding that the building plan was returned to the complainant on 7.4.2000 and PUDA had already recovered the non-construction charges from 1.7.1997 till 30.6.2002 from transferee Roshan Lal and, thus, the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs. 23,925/-. Next submission of the complainant was that on the basis of this order, she was to get this amount but it was not done so by the opposite party. Later on, the Additional Chief Administrator reviewed the order on the basis of a departmental inquiry and held that the refund was not justified. THE decision of Additional Chief Administrator on the administrative side without joining the complainant in the inquiry or giving her a prior notice before reviewing the order passed by the Estate Officer, PUDA, according to the complainant, amounted to deficiency of service. Even otherwise, the complainant had submitted the building plan on 21.3.1997. THE sanction was conveyed to the complainant on 7.4.2000. Earlier to 7.4.2000, she was informed that the building plan, duly sanctioned, had been taken away by M/s. J.B. Architects on behalf of the complainant. If, for any reason, the opposite party had delivered the building plan approved by M/s. J.B. Architects to be re-submitted as per the procedure after getting the same approved from the committee members and it was not done so, holding the complainant responsible for on-raising the construction during this period, did not seem to have any justification. THErefore, according to the complainant, the refund of the non-construction fee pertaining to the period from 21.3.1997 to 7.4.2002 which, according to the order, Ex. C-15, came to Rs. 23,925/-, should have been upheld. We are of the view that the District Forum has rightly held that non-payment of the above said amount to the complainant despite the order of the Estate Officer, PUDA, and its withdrawal by a review order without notice to the complainant, amounted to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. THE District Forum has thus, rightly allowed the complaint partly and directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 23,925/- to the complainant as per order, Ex. C-15, with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of deposit till payment as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and mental torture and Rs. 500/- as costs. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.