PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs N.S. KOHLI

-IN this revision challenge is to the order dated 5.6.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order dated 16.12.2004 of a District Forum dismissing the complaint, with following directions: (i) The demand raised by PUDA for non-construction fee from the year 1998 to 2003 vide memo dated 25.11.2003 (Ex. C-3) is hereby set aside. (ii) Respondent PUDA to refund Rs. 14,005 admittedly received by it in excess from the complainant, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 25.11.2003 (when calculations were made after the order of the Revisional Authority dated 5.8.2003) till payment; (iii) Let the physical possession of the site be delivered to the complainant within a period of 30 days of the certified copy thereof from the complainant whichever is earlier after giving due notice by registered post to the complainant to come present to take the physical possession; (iv) The complainant will be given a further period of construction to complete three years period from the date of possession after taking into account the period from 10.4.1995 to 21.2.1997 (about 22 months) in other words, the complainant will be given period to complete construction of about 14 months from the date of possession and if the complainant does not complete the construction as aforesaid, PUDA will be at liberty to levy/charge non-construction fee in accordance with law.

AS may be seen from the order of State Commission, the respondent/complainant had purchased site No. 80 in Phase III-B2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in an open auction held on 3.9.1993 for a sum of Rs. 5,82,000 from PUDA-petitioner/O.P.-Authority. Allotment letter was issued on 10.4.1995. AS per the terms of allotment, the construction on site was to be completed within a period of 3 years i.e., by 9.4.1998. There was some default in payment of interest/penalty on instalments by the respondent/complainant which led to the passing of the order on 21.2.1997 for resumption of the site in question. On challenge of this resumption order by filing appeal, the respondent succeeded in part. Revision Petition filed by the respondent against the appellate order before the Special Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development was decided by the order dated 5.8.2003. Revisional Authority was of the view that the schedule of payment of instalments should have been from the date of allotment i.e., 10.4.1995 and not from the date of auction i.e., 3.9.1993. The Estate Officer, Mohali was, therefore, directed to re-schedule the instalments giving due credit to the respondent for the period he deposited the instalments in advance by not charging interest. In case, there was any outstanding amount to be paid by respondent, the same was to be paid by him within 30 days from the date of demand by the Estate Officer and in case there was surplus amount received from the respondent, the same was to be refunded within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order by the Estate Officer. Pursuant to this direction on calculation being made, the petitioner authority found that amount of Rs. 14,005 was received in excess by it. After allowing adjustment for this amount, an amount of Rs. 67,230 towards non-construction fee was claimed by the petitioner vide Memo dated 25.11.2003. This demand was challenged by filing complaint before the District Forum by the respondent. The State Commission was of the view that from 21.2.1997 till 5.8.2003, the respondent could not make construction/complete construction as the site stood resumed during this period and he will have to be given about 14 months time for construction from the date the possession is given to complete three years period and no fee is chargeable for this period. Only submission advanced by Ms. C.K. Suchitra for the petitioner is that it being a case of settlement of accounts there was no deficiency in service and the State Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal. Submission is, however, without any merit. Complaint under the Act was maintainable challenging the correctness of the Memo dated 25.11.2003 (Ex. C-3) claiming amount of Rs. 67,230. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.