Punjab Urban Planning And Development Authority And Anr. vs Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia And Anr.

IN this revision notice was issued to the Respondents limited to the question as to whether the extent of relief granted by the Fora below is on the higher side. Learned Counsel appearing on both sides were heard.

THE Respondents/Complainants had purchased Plot No. 795 in Urban Estate , Phase -I, Patiala from the Petitioner. The construction plan was approved by the Petitioner -Authority vide Letter No. 11598/25/11/97 and physical possession of the plot was handed over to the Complainant on 12.8.1998. The Complainants started construction which was stopped by the Petitioner. The Petitioner sent notice to the Complainants for payment of non -construction charges. The Complainants sought reasonable time to start construction vide letter dated 29.12.1998. The Complainants again started construction but it was once again stopped by the Petitioner. The construction was stopped on the ground that an objection had been raised by the owner of Plot No. 794 that the gate of Plot No. 795 was sanctioned on the left side while gate of Plot No. 794 was on the right side which were not in accordance with the zoning plan. The Petitioners had themselves sanctioned the plan of the Complainants with gate on the left side and, as such, were themselves to be blamed for the same. Nevertheless, the Complainants got the site plan approved by showing gate on the right side. Thus, the construction was twice stopped for no fault on their part and added to that the Petitioners also demanded non -construction charges. Admittedly, the construction of the Complainants was delayed for more than one year due to stopping of construction by the Petitioner -Authority. The District Forum held in paragraph 7 as under: ".............The whole procedure and exercise of rejection of the previously sanctioned site plan (29.11.1998) and subsequently again reverting to the same (29.11.1997) and subsequently passing of the second site plan on 29.12.1998 was nothing but only to harass the consumer. It is the responsibility of the respondent to pay the loss which were suffered by the complainant. The respondents themselves admitted that the delay was caused due to their inefficient and improper decisions. It is because of this reason, they are ready to waive of non -construction fee for 1999. It is thus clear proof of deficiency in service on the part of Respondent."

THE District Forum quashed non -construction fee for 1999 and the Petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,13,476 to the Complainant. The break up of the said payment in para -8 is as under: 1. Due to escalation Rs. 50,000 2. Due to material loss Rs. 17,000 3. Charges paid to architect Rs. 2,500 4. Interest accrued on housing loan Rs. 28,976 5. Compensation for mental pain and agony Rs. 25,000 Rs. 1,13,4764

The State Commission held in paragraph 12 as under: ".................The construction of respondents was delayed for about more than one year due to stopping of the construction by the appellants. Even if they had right to stop construction, then it should not have been stopped for more than 102 months. Initially appellants may have good intention in stopping the construction to hear objection raised by neighbouring allottee but it should not have been delayed for such a long period. It shows their inefficiency and improper decision and thereby caused loss to the respondents."

"......... Even if it is presumed bona fidei, they wanted to resolve the dispute/complaint of allottee of Plot No. 794 then they should have decided it expeditiously within one or two months but not have lingered on the matter and stopped construction again and again. First, construction was allowed according to earlier approved plan and then again stopped the construction and then approved the rejected site plan. In the present case deficiency in service is writ large and has been proved beyond doubt. Hence, the said authority is not applicable."

THE State Commission, therefore, confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.

THE Complainants had sought compensation of Rs. 4,88,486 which included loss due to escalation, wastage of material, charges paid to the architect, interest on loan and damages on account of mental pain and agony. The Complainants had produced an estimate of loss prepared by J.P. Associates wherein estimated loss due to change in foundation was stated to be Rs. 17,010 and escalation in the cost due to price rise in two years as Rs. 3,35,000. The Complainants also produced receipt from S.B. Architects for payment of Rs. 2,500 for the revised plan as also a certificate from the Punjab and Sind Bank regarding charging of interest of Rs. 28,976 . There is also affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Singla, Junior Engineer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development, Patiala wherein he had assessed the expenditure incurred by the Complainant to be around Rs. 29,670.

THE construction of the Complainant was stopped by the Petitioner twice for no fault of the Complainant. Instead of expeditiously dealing with the matter, the Petitioner took considerable time on account of which the construction of the Complainants was delayed for over one year resulting in not only wastage of material but escalation of cost, payment of interest for the period the construction was stopped. The District Forum had calculated the loss suffered by the Complainants on the basis of material on record. In fact, the escalation loss was restricted to Rs. 50,000 only. For the mental agony, pain, etc. also the District Forum awarded a reasonable amount of Rs. 25,000.

IN view of the above, we find that no case whatsoever has been made out by the Petitioner for interference as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.