State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab Urban Planning & Development ... vs Jaswinder Singh & Ors. on 30 May, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1264 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 09.10.2006.
Date of Decision: 30.05.2011.
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Jagraon Road,
Ludhiana, through Addl. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Jaswinder Singh;
2. Harjinder Singh;
3. Gurmeet Singh;
Sons of late Sh. Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Narain Singh, Residents of Sarhali
Engineering Works, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, through
attorney Pal Singh Grewal S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o Village Jamalpur
Awana, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.
..... Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
18.07.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
First Appeal No. 1264 of 2006 2
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Jaswinder Singh and others, respondents/ complainants (in short, "the respondents") filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") through attorney Pal Singh Grewal against the appellant, pleading that Sh. Pritam Singh deceased father of the respondents was allotted plot no.936, measuring 500 sq.yds. in Urban Estate, Dhandari Kalan, Phase-II, Ludhiana, vide allotment letter dated 26.07.1972. The entire sale price of the plot was paid in due course. The said allotment was made subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development & Regd.) Act, 1964 and rules framed thereunder. The said Act and rules now stand repealed u/s 183 of the Punjab Regional & Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter called, "1995 Act") and now the plots allotted even before 1995 are governed under the provisions of the Act as provided u/s 183 (4) of the Act, as held in case Tehal Singh Vs State of Punjab decided on 04.05.1999 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.
3. Sh. Pritam Singh expired on 01.04.2003 and the respondents are his legal heirs and are beneficiaries and the complaint has been filed through their special power of attorney Pal Singh appointed vide deed dated 02.11.2004. The deceased allottee had to deposit Rs.1,75,550/- on 02.05.2000 with the appellant as extension fee arrears vide receipt no.77 dated 02.05.2000 under coercion and threat of resumption of plot and under mistake of law as to the right of the appellant to recover the said arrears.
4. On 01.09.2004, the respondents came to know that the appellant was competent to charge extension fee in respect of the above plot only for a period of 5 years from 1995 onwards at the rates specified in Rule 13 of the PUDA Rules, 1995 and not at higher rates fixed by the appellant vide its letter dated 15.01.1998 or any other administrative instructions or order, as charged from the allottees arbitrarily and illegally and in violation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. As per the judgments, the appellant can charge extension fee only as per the rates specified in Rule-13 and the provisions thereof, First Appeal No. 1264 of 2006 3 but the appellant charged Rs.1,68,640/- in excess as extension fee, whereas the legally recoverable amount was only Rs.6910/-.
5. On discovery of the mistake of law on 01.09.2004 in respect of payment of extension fee, the respondents approached the appellant with a request to refund the excess amount and also served a legal notice dated 08.11.2004, but to no effect. The appellant was party in the case of Sant Kaur and also in the case of Tehal Singh Vs State of Punjab and was bound by the orders passed in both the cases by the Hon'ble High Court and the Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 31.10.2002 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 14.07.2003 and the law became settled and final. The appellant has refused to refund the extension fee charged in excess which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and has caused a lot of harassment and mental tension and prayed that the appellant be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,68,640/- recovered as extension fee in excess along with interest @ 12% p.a. and pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that the respondents are not the consumers as defined under the Act and the complaint has not been filed through competent person and is time barred. On merits, it was admitted that all the allotments are made subject to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the provisions of the Act, 1964 and rules framed thereunder. The said Act has been repealed and new Act has come into force. The appellant authorities have raised the demand of extension fee strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations and the policies framed from time to time in this regard. The present complaint is the misuse of the process of law. No excess amount has been charged. Denying all other allegations, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
First Appeal No. 1264 of 2006 4
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant should have calculated the extension fee according to Rule 13 of 1995 Rules after the judgments of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and the demands made in excess should have been refunded. The cause of action accrued on 14.07.2003, the date when the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order and the present complaint was filed on 28.03.2005 and is within time, and accepted the complaint, directed the appellant to charge the non- construction charges in accordance with Rule 13 of 1995 Rules, and to refund the amount, if any, received in excess.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.07.2006, the appellant has come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the District Forum and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plot in dispute was allotted to the father of the respondents and as per Clause-12 and 13 of the allotment letter, the building was to be completed within three years from the date of issue of allotment letter and the possession of the plot was offered to the father of the respondents on 07.07.1976, but the possession was not taken. Later on, application for permission to sell the said plot to Jaspal Singh, Tarlok Singh, Taranjit Kaur and Kamaljit Kaur was submitted through Pal Singh and vide letter dated 25.10.2000, permission was granted to sell the plot in question to said Jaspal Singh etc. and now the respondents have no locus standi to file the complaint. The present complaint was filed on 28.03.2005 and the same is time barred. The extension fee has been recovered legally and the Forum or this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint regarding the same.
14. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Sant Kaur and Tehal Singh Vs State of Punjab, directed the appellant to charge the First Appeal No. 1264 of 2006 5 extension fee as per Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules and the S.L.P. was dismissed and as per this Rule, the extension fee comes to Rs.6910/- only. The present complaint was filed within the time of limitation after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is no illegality in the order of the District Forum and the appeal may be dismissed.
15. We have considered these submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. The appellant has not brought on record any document to prove that the plot in question was sold by the respondents to Jaspal Singh etc. whereas the original allottee was the father of the respondents and the present complaint was filed by the respondents through their attorney Pal Singh Grewal. As such, they have stepped into the shoes of their father and have every locus standi to file the complaint and they are consumers under the Act.
17. The second important question to be decided in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to recover extension fee amounting to Rs.1,75,550/- or Rs.6910/- only?
18. The appellant and its officials knowingly have ignored the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and are hell-bent to recover/retain the non-construction charges/extension fee against their own rules. Under the PUDA Act, the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development (General) Rules, 1995 (In short, "1995 Rules") were framed and the appellant was entitled to charge the extension fee under Rule 13 of the said 1995 Rules. Later on, the appellant issued instructions on 15.01.1998 and the same were struck down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case "Tehal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab", passed in Civil Writ Petition No.13648 of 1998 decided on 04.05.1998 and subsequently again, the administrative instructions were issued on 08.10.2001 which were again struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.18986 of 2001 decided on 31.10.2002 titled as "Sant Kaur Jabbi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.", and the Special Leave Petitions against the said judgments were dismissed First Appeal No. 1264 of 2006 6 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "Narinder Singh Nanda Vs P.U.D.A.", Revision Petition No.2125 of 2006 decided on 27.05.2009, discussed in detail all the provisions of the Act and the Rules including the case "HUDA Vs Sunita", (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases-479, and held that when the statutory authorities go against the provisions of the statute, then the Court/Forum has the jurisdiction and ultimately, held that the extension fee under Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules only can be demanded.
19. Learned District Forum has rightly observed that the cause of action to file the present complaint arose on 14.07.2003, the date when the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order, upholding the judgments on the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the present complaint was filed on 28.03.2005, as such, is within limitation and is not barred by time. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under appeal dated 18.07.2006 nor there is any ground to interfere with the same.
20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order dated 18.07.2006 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
21. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.05.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could no be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member May 30, 2011.
(Gurmeet Singh)