State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harsimranjeet Kaur vs P.U.D.A./Bda on 7 January, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No. 111 of 2020
Date of institution : 13.03.2020
Reserved on : 08.12.2025
Date of Decision : 07.01.2026
Harsimranjeet Kaur Mavi wife of Sh.Manpreet Singh Mavi, resident of
House No. 1165, Phase-9, Mohali (Punjab)-160062
....Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab Urban Development Authority (also known as Bathinda
Development Authority) through their Estate Officer, PUDA/BDA
Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda (Punjab)-151001
Email : [email protected]
2. The Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority
(also known as Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA/BDA
Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda (Punjab)-151001.
Email : [email protected]
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No CC.No. 111 of 2020 2 Present:-
For the Complainant : Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, Auth. Rep.
For the OPs : Ms. Twinkle Verma, Adv. For
Ms. Swati Dayalan, Advocate
SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :
The Complainant has filed the Complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) under Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') on the averments that the Complainant had applied for allotment of plot with the OPs. She had applied vide Application No.100032 in General Category. She had also deposited Rs.6,30,000/- on 22.12.2015 as 10% earnest money against the sale price of 300 sq. yards plot. On 21.04.2016, Letter of Intent (LoI) regarding Plot No. 106, Nirvana Estate, Urban Estate PUDA, Bathinda was issued by OP No.1.
Accordingly, she had deposited an amount of Rs.9,45,000/- on 16.05.2016 being the remaining 15% of the total price of the plot along with 2% more as Cancer Cess. Thereafter Allotment Letter No. PUDA/E.O./2016/7619 dated 24.10.2016 was issued. The Complainant was keen to pay the remaining amount in lumpsum on or before 25.10.2017. She had sent an e-mail dated 12.10.2017 to the OPs, enquiring about the exact remaining amount towards the said plot. She had again sent a reminder e-mail dated 16.10.2017. During the said period she came to know that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was seized of the matter pertaining to applicability of any interest payable on installments up till the date of possession of the plots. However, the Complainant had received belated reply from the OPs on 25.10.2017. After the said reply the CC.No. 111 of 2020 3 Complainant was able to pay an amount of Rs.25,905,125/- through RTGS on 25.10.2017. She was informed that an outstanding amount of Rs.50,95,125/- was due upto 25.10.2017. She was also informed that she would have to pay extra amount if the amount due was not paid up till 25.10.2017. She had paid Rs.25,000/- on 10.11.2017. Thereafter, the Complainant had applied to the OPs for the issuance of No Due Certificate. The OPs had denied the same. She was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.2,20,115/-, calculated as per Half Yearly Payment Schedule starting from April-18 till April-20. This amount was payable upto 16.04.2018. Accordingly, the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,22,000/- on 24.04.2018 through Bank Draft dated 21.04.2018 to the OPs. It was further averred by the Complainant that the OPs had wrongly calculated the said amount of Rs.2,22,000/-. Therefore, the said amount was received in excess by the OPs. Accordingly, she had sought refund of the said amount in November, but the OPs had refunded only an amount of Rs.1,241/-.
2. It was further alleged that the said act of the OPs in not replying to her various communications regarding due amount toward the said plot forced the Complainant to pay additional amount of Rs.2,17,587/- plus interest. Due to said act of OPs, the Complainant had suffered irreparable financial loss and mental agony, harassment.
3. Alleging the act of the OPs to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice', which compelled the Complainant to approach this Commission by way of filing the CC.No. 111 of 2020 4 Complaint and seeking direction to be issued to the OPs to refund the additional amount received as Rs.2,22,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 24.04.2018, the date of deposit till realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of causing mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant on account of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair act' of the OPs and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the OPs had filed their written statement. It was admitted that the plot was allotted to the Complainant. After she had accepted the terms and conditions of LOI dated 21.04.2016. She had deposited an amount of Rs.15,75,000/- being 15% of remaining amount plus Rs.1,26,000/- towards Cancer Cess. Thereafter, allotment letter was issued in her name on 24.10.2016. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the Complainant was having option to either deposited the tentative balance 75% amount i.e. Rs.47,25,000/- in lumpsum within 60 days. She was also given the option to pay the amount in 6 equated half-yearly installments along with 12% p.a. interest w.e.f. October, 2017 to April, 2020. A rebate @ 5% was only admissible on payment of 75% amount due in lumpsum within 60 days from the date of allotment letter. In case the payment was paid in lumpsum subsequently at any stage, a rebate of 5% was admissible on the balance principal amount. The Complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2017 had duly been informed about the total outstanding amount of Rs.50,95,125/- as on 25.10.2017. She was also informed that said amount would increase after 25.10.2017. As the CC.No. 111 of 2020 5 Complainant had deposited Rs.25,95,125/- on 25.10.2017 and Rs.25,00,000/- on 10.11.2017 through RTGS, therefore, she was informed vide letter dated 10.04.2018 that an amount of Rs.2,20,115/- was due towards her. In compliance of said letter, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,22,000/- on 24.04.2018. After calculation an amount of Rs.1241/- was found in excess, which was refunded to her vide letter dated 07.12.2018. Therefore, the cause of action to file the Complaint either arose from 10.04.2018 i.e. the late date of payment or from 07.12.2018 i.e. the date when an amount of Rs.1241/- was refunded to the Complainant. Thereafter she had filed incomplete Complaint on 13.03.2020. The Registry of the State Commission had raised objections in the said Complaint. She was asked to remove the said objections. The Complainant took 5 years' to remove the said objections. Therefore, the Complaint was not filed within time as incomplete Complaint was not maintainable. The Complaint was time barred, which could be dismissed on this score only. The amount claimed in the Complaint as relief was less than Rs.20,00,000/-, therefore, the State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. The Complainant had purchased the plot for commercial use, therefore, no covered under the definition of 'Consumer'. The Complainant had already been given benefit under Amnesty Policy, 2025 was per letter No. 172 dated 09.09.2025. As per this letter, the Complainant was directed to deposit 50% amount i.e. Rs.1,61,701/- against the due amount of Rs.3,23,402/-. To take benefit of the said policy she had to withdraw all on going cases in any Court. As the possession of the CC.No. 111 of 2020 6 plot had been offered on 25.05.2018 and it was taken on 01.06.2018 i.e. within two years from the issuance of allotment letter, therefore, the OPs were not liable to pay any interest. The Complainant had also concealed the fact that the OPs had refunded the interest amount of Rs.5,98,585/- vide cheque No. 090683 dated 18.02.2021 as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No. 25115 of 2016. The Complainant had claimed refund of Rs.2,22,000/- as excess payment by ignoring the fact that she had to pay interest for paying the second installment at a belated stage i.e. after 25.10.2017. The Complainant herself had admitted in the Complaint that she had not paid the balance 75% amount within 60 days of issuance of the Allotment Letter i.e. till 25.10.2017. She had paid the second installment of remaining amount on 10.11.2017. It was reiterated that she was only entitled to pay the amount without interest, in case she had deposited the balance amount of Rs.47,25,000/- within a period of 60 days from the issuance of allotment letter. She could take the benefit of rebate @ 5% only if she had made the payment upto 23.12.2016, which was not done by her. As the lumpsum payment was not deposited within the prescribed time, therefore, she was only entitled for rebate of 5% on the balance principal amount of Rs.39,37,500/-. It was the bounden duty of the complainant to deposit remaining 75% amount if she did not want to pay the interest on the remaining amount and if she was seeking rebate of 5%. The OPs could not issue NOC to the Complainant as she had not cleared the outstanding amount due towards her. The Complainant had filed the Complaint only to harass the OPs, without CC.No. 111 of 2020 7 any deficiency on their part and such act of the OPs be penalized by imposing cost upon her.
5. In her rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs, the Complainant had reiterated her version as mentioned in the Complaint. It was averred that to the OPs failed sent reply to email dated 12.10.2017, they had replied only on 25.10.2017 which was the last date of deposit of amount due i.e. Rs.50,95,125/-. To make payment of remaining due amount, the Complainant had required the sanction of Rs.25 Lakh Housing Loan from her Banker. After receiving email regarding amount due, she had paid an amount of Rs.25,95,125/- on the same day i.e. 25.10.2017. Whereas the remaining amount of Rs.25 lakh had been paid by her banker upon sanction of Housing Loan. The delay on the part of the OPs in informing the Complainant about amount due was grave negligence on their behalf. Therefore, the OPs had wrongly charged excess amount of Rs.2,22,000/- from her due to their own wrong and unreasonable calculation. They had only refund an amount of Rs.1241/- against the excess payment of Rs.2,22,000/-. It was reiterated in the Rejoinder that the said negligent act on the part of the OPs was a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice'. The Complainant had purchased the plot for her personal use and as she was presently residing in Government Accommodation at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, hence, not required to shift to own house till date. It was averred that once the Complainant opted and informed the OPs for One Time Payment on 12.10.2017 in time, therefore, she was not liable to pay future CC.No. 111 of 2020 8 interest. Rather she was entitled for rebate of 5% on the entire remaining amount. The relief granted under Amnesty Policy, 2025 pertains to penalties imposed on account of non-construction fee. It was not related to issue in dispute i.e. excess payment charged by the OPs. As the Complainant had opted to go with Clause 3(III) of the terms of allotment, therefore, there was no time restriction upon the Complainant to seek one time deposit of balance amount.
6. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.
7. Mr. Satish Kumar Saini, Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the Complainant has argued that initially the Complainant had deposited the 25% amount of the total cost of the plot within time and had deposited the balance 75% amount immediately after OPs had informed about amount due of Rs.50,95,125/-. Since the OPs informed her about the due amount only on 25.10.2017 in reply to her emails dated 12.10.2017 and 16.10.2017, therefore, the Complainant had deposited part-payment of Rs.25,95,125/- on the same day. As she needed to obtain Housing Loan of Rs.25 Lakh for the remaining amount, therefore, the said amount had been deposited on 10.11.2017, upon approval of the same. Therefore, the act of the OPs demanding more amount of Rs.2,17,587/- by rescheduling the plan of payment on their own and by levying interest on the same was illegal and arbitrary act on the part of the OPs. Vide another letter dated 10.04.2018, it was informed by the OPs that after adjusting rebate @ 5% upto 16.04.2018 an amount of Rs.2,20,115/- was due. In compliance to the same, the CC.No. 111 of 2020 9 Complainant had deposited Rs.2,22,000/- on 24.04.2018 under protest. The OPs had wrongly and illegally raised demand of Rs.2,22,000/- with interest and had drawn rescheduled plan of payment in six installments on their own. It was prayed that the Complaint be allowed in toto. The Complainant in the present Complainant has argued that she had deposited the amount in lumpsum immediately on informing the due about by the OPs, therefore, raising the demand of Rs.2,20,115/- by the OPs vide letter dated 10.04.2018 was illegal and unjustified. He has relied upon the judgements of cases i.e. 1) "M/s.Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftab Singh", 2019 (1) RCR (Civil) 334 (SC), 2) "PUDA Vs. Jiya Lal Bansal", FA No.318 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023 (this Commission), in support of his oral arguments.
8. Ms. Twinkle Verma, Advocate proxy Counsel for the OPs has argued that in the Allotment letter dated 24.10.2016, it was clearly mentioned that the Complainant could either paid the remaining balance amount of Rs.47,25,000/- in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in 6 equated half yearly installments. The Complainant had failed to deposit amount in lumpsum and had deposited the same in two installments. Thereafter, the OPs had replied to the communication of the Complainant and had informed her that till 25.10.2017, an amount of Rs.50,95,125/- was due. It was also informed that if the Complainant did not opt to deposit the said amount in that case the amount due would increase further. The Complainant deposited only part-payment against the said demand and remaining amount was CC.No. 111 of 2020 10 paid on 10.11.2017. The rebate of 5% had been considered against his payments. As the amount in lumpsum was not deposited as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, therefore, the OPs had rightly raised the demand for an amount of Rs.2,20,115/- from the Complainant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No. 25115 of 2016 "Gurpreet Singh Bhullar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.", an amount of Rs.5,98,585/- had already been refunded to the Complainant vide order dated 02.11.2020.
9. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complainant had wrongly claimed interest free payment despite the fact that she had failed to make the payment towards amount due within time frame of 60 days as per the allotment letter. As the possession of the plot was handed over to her in less than 2 years, therefore, non-payment of interest on her part was not justified. The Complainant has moved an Application to get relief under Amnesty Policy, 2025 which pertains to penalties imposed on account of non- construction fee. As per the said Amnesty Policy the Complainant has to give an undertaking that she would withdraw all the cases against the OPs as she had already been granted the benefit. It was prayed by the learned Counsel that to get benefit of Amnesty Policy the Complainant has to withdraw the present Appeal otherwise he is not liable to get benefit of the same. She has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
CC.No. 111 of 2020 11
10. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused all the documents, written arguments available on the file as well as law cited by the parties.
11. The issue for adjudication before us as to whether the OPs had wrongly raised a demand of Rs.2,20,115/- (Ex.C-6) from the Complainant or not?
12. To reach to the right conclusion, it is important to go through the sequence of events that led to the present Complaint.
1. The Complainant was successful in the draw of lots and was allotted a plot measuring 300 sq. yards plot i.e. Plot No. 106 in Nirvana Estate, Urban Estate PUDA, Bathinda to her. She was allotted the said plot vide Allotment letter dated 24.10.2016.
2. As per Clause 3 of the letter of Intent dated 21.04.2016, the tentative price of the plot was Rs.63,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per sq.yards. Besides, 2% cancer cess was also liable to be charged from the Complainant on the total price of the plot. Accordingly, she had deposited an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- on 22.12.2015.
3. Further, she had deposited an amount of Rs.9,45,000/- on 16.05.2016 being 15% of tentative price of the plot. Further she had paid an amount of Rs.1,26,000/- i.e. 2% of the sale price of the plot towards Cancer Cess.
4. She had sent an email on 12.10.2014 to enquire about the balance amount to be paid with regard to the plot in question. In response to her said communication, the OP had informed that the total outstanding balance amount was Rs.50,95,125/- which CC.No. 111 of 2020 12 was due as on 25.10.2017 (Ex.C-3). It was further informed that the amount would increase further in case it was not paid in lumpsum before 25.10.2017.
5. Accordingly, the Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,95,125/- on 25.10.2017 (Ex.C-2) and thereafter an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was deposited on 10.11.2017 through RTGS (Ex.C-4).
6. Again vide email dated 17.11.2017 she had requested to OPs to intimate to her about any remaining balance amount. She had also sent a reminder with regard to remaining balance amount after depositing 100% payment of Rs.50,95,125/- (page no.27).
7. Since, the OPs had rescheduled her payment plan in six installments as per the condition/clause 3 (II) & (III) mentioned in the Allotment Letter, therefore, she was informed vide letter dated 27.02.2018 (Ex.C-5) that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.2,17,587/-. In this regard she had again received letter dated 10.04.2018 that there was an outstanding of Rs.2,20,115/- after giving a rebate @ 5% (Ex.C-6).
8. After making calculations, the OPs had refunded an amount of Rs.1241/- vide letter dated 07.12.2018 (Ex.C-7).
13. The main contention of the Complainant is that the OPs had wrongly raised a demand of Rs.2,20,115/- as mentioned in the aforesaid sequence of events. In this context, we have gone through CC.No. 111 of 2020 13 Clause 3 (II) & (III) of Allotment letter (Ex.C-1). Said Clauses are reproduced below:
II The balance amount of Rs.4725000.00 being 75% of the tentative price of plot can either be paid in lumpsum without any interest within 60 days from the issue of allotment letter (excluding date of issue) or in 6 equated half-yearly installments (with first installment falling due after one year from the date of issued of allotment letter) along with an interest @ 12% per annum s indicated in the schedule given in below:-
# No of Installment Date of Principal Interest Total payment of Amount Amount Installment
1. 1 25-Oct-2017 787500.00 567000.00 1354500.00
2. 2 25-Apr-2018 787500.00 236260.00 1023760.00
3. 3 25-Oct-2018 787500.00 189000.00 976500.00
4. 4 25-Apr-2019 787500.00 141750.00 929250.00
5. 5 25-Oct-2019 787500.00 94500.00 882000.00
6. 6 25-Apr-2020 787500.00 47250.00 834750.00 TOTAL 4725000.00 1275750.00 6000750.90 III In case balance 75% is made in lumpsum within 60 days from the date of allotment letter (excluding date of issue), a rebate of 5% shall be admissible on this amount. However, in case payment of amount due is made in lumpsum subsequently at any stage, a rebate of 5% on the balance principal amount shall also be admissible.
It is apparent that the Complainant had failed to deposit balance 75% i.e. the lumpsum amount within 60 days from the date of allotment letter. Meaning thereby that she herself had chosen to go by second option of the Allotment Letter i.e. paying the balance amount after 60 days. Accordingly, the OPs had rescheduled her installments and CC.No. 111 of 2020 14 levied interest @ 12% per annum (Clause 3 (II)). Keeping the said Clause into consideration the OPs had calculated her balance outstanding as Rs.2,20,115/-, which was intimated to her vide letter dated 10.04.2018. In the said letter, the OPs had categorically mentioned that the said outstanding amount was calculated after adjusting rebate @ 5% on the principal amount as per the Clause 3 (III) of Allotment letter. In response to the said letter, the Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2.22 lac under protest on 24.04.2018. The OPs had refunded Rs.1241/- on 07.12.2018 (Ex.C-7) being excess amount paid to them. In view of aforesaid observation, it has transpired that the OPs had rescheduled the payment plan as per the terms and conditions of the Allotment letter. Accordingly, the contention of the Complainant that the OPs were liable to refund an amount of Rs.2.22 lac deposited by her under protest is hereby rejected.
14. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the OPs have alleged that the Complainant had concealed the fact that she was refunded an amount of Rs.5,98,585/- towards payment of interest in view of order passed by Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.2511 of 2016. The said amount was deposited vide cheque dated 08.02.2021 in her account. She had been informed about the said refund vide letter dated 19.02.2021. In this context, we are of the view that the said refund pertains to a separate issue qua interest. Therefore, no observation is required to be made in the said context.
15. It is pertinent to mention that she had filed the present Complaint in the year 2020. The Registry of this Commission had CC.No. 111 of 2020 15 raised certain objections. However, despite the orders of this Commission the Complainant had not removed the said objections raised by the Registry and the case was adjourned sine-die. In this regard we are of the view that the Complainant herself was casual in pursuing the Complaint filed in the year 2020. She has approximately taken a period of 5 years to remove the objections and pursue the present Complaint. This laxity on her part is not acceptable by this Commission.
16. Further, during the course of proceedings the Complainant has also moved an Application under Section 151 CPC to pre-pone the final hearing of the Complaint on or before 07.12.2025 in view of letter dated 09.09.2025 issued by the OPs (Annexure A-2). She has also annexed (Annexure A-1), which forms a basis of Annexure A-2. Accordingly, we have gone through the said documents. It appears that the Complainant wants to take benefit of Amnesty Policy floated by Department of Housing and Urban Development, Govt. of Punjab, dated 20.02.2025 at this stage. This policy has been floated by the Govt. to recover an outstanding installments from allottees of Urban Development Authority of Punjab in respect of allotted/auctioned/sites with view to mitigate the litigations in this regard. Apparently, the Complainant under the said Amnesty Policy wants to deposit an outstanding amount of Rs.1,61,701/- towards non-construction fee. As per the said policy, she can only deposit the said amount in case she is ready to withdraw all Complaints/Appeals/Civil matters/Applications. She herself has applied for the Amnesty CC.No. 111 of 2020 16 Policy and has given undertaking for the same (Annexure A-1 with I.A.No.1620 of 2025). It is surprising that once she has given the said undertaking, how her Authorized Representative has moved the Application for pre-ponement of final hearing. The Complainant has vehemently argued that the issue in the original Complaint is different from that of said Amnesty Policy. Therefore, she may be allowed to continue the proceedings before this Commission. In this regard, we refrain to interfere with the Amnesty Policy floated by the Govt. of Punjab. Since the Complainant herself has decided to take benefit of Amnesty Policy. She had also given under taking that she would withdraw all Complaints/Appeals/Civil matters/Applications and would deposit remaining amount with proof (Annexure A-1). She has opted to take the said benefit as per the doctrine of election, therefore, she is directed to proceed as per the mandate/conditions of the said policy.
17. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paras, we do not find any merit in the original Complaint filed by the Complainant qua refund of Rs.2,22,000/- towards excess amount charged by the OPs with regard to plot in question. She is also not entitled to get any compensation and litigation expenses as prayed by her. Accordingly, the present Complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
CC.No. 111 of 2020 17
18. The Complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER January 07, 2026.
Rupinder 2