National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Urban Planning And Devp. ... vs Prem Singh Mann on 4 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2008)CPJ65(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member-In this revision filed against the order dated 21.2.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 5.9.2005 of a District Forum, the submission advanced by Shri Ranjit Sharma for the petitioner/opposite party Authority is that the Consumer Fora does not have jurisdiction to go into the validity of the demand of composition fee and extension fee made from the respondent/complainant. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the decision in HUDA v. Sunita (2005) (2) SCC 479. It is pointed out that the demands which were quashed by the Fora below pertained to non-construction fee.
2. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the said decision which are material, run as under:
3. After perusing the order of the National Commission and hearing learned Counsel for the parties we find that the National Commission has held that the statutory obligations of HUDA and plot-holder under the provisions of the HUDA Act and the Regulations are not act or omissions constituting 'deficiency in service' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
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. 6,300.
3. This decision squarely covers the controversy involved in the present revision. Order passed by Fora below, therefore, deserves to be set aside being not legally sustainable.
4. Accordingly, while allowing revision the orders passed by Fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed. It will be open to the respondent to resort to any other appropriate remedy for quashing the demand in question in accordance with law.
5. No order as to cost.