National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Baldev Singh vs Punjab Urban & Development Authority ... on 17 January, 2011
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2010 [Against the order dated 19.04.2010 in Appeal No. 1589/2007 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh] Baldev Singh 853, Urban Estate Kapurthala-144601 Petitioner Versus Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA) Through Estate Officer SCO 41, Ladowali Road Jallandhar City (Pubjab) Respondent Before : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBERS Appearance : For the Petitioner : In-person For the Respondent : Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advocate Pronounced on : 17th of January, 2011 O R D E R
Petitioner/complainant had made two allegations against the respondent, Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (the District Forum for short).
His first charge was that for a plot allotted to him in Kapurthala Urban Estate during 2001 even though he had paid the installments according to the schedule and the respondent/opposite party/PUDA had declared one year moratorium on deposit of installments, he has been wrongly charged 15% interest on the installments. His second grouse was that the respondent/opposite party/PUDA has imposed extension fee for non-construction for the years 2005-2006 despite the fact that the respondent/opposite party/PUDA itself vide their circular dated 5th of October, 2004 had granted a moratorium for a period of three years for the purpose of construction w.e.f. 12th of June, 2002, the date on which the zoning of this area was approved.
When the complaint was pending before the District Forum, the respondent/opposite party/PUDA agreed to refund the excess amount recovered from the complainant on the installments paid by him but adjusted an amount of Rs.13,539/- from out of the excess amount as extension fee for the years 2005 and 2006. The District Forum, therefore, considered as to whether the respondent/opposite party/PUDA was entitled to levy any extension fee for non-construction for the years 2005 and 2006 and vide their order dated 18th of September, 2007 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party/PUDA not to charge any extension fee till demarcation is completed and possession is given to the complainant. It also directed the respondent/opposite party to pay Rs.13,539/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 24th of April, 2006 till payment. It further awarded a cost of Rs.3,000/-.
The order of the District Forum was challenged before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (the State Commission for short), who vide the impugned order has set aside the order of the District Forum; thereby dismissing the complaint. This has necessitated the complainant to file this revision petition before us seeking setting aside of the order passed by the State Commission.
The short point for consideration is as to whether on the face of the policy decision taken by the respondent/opposite party/PUDA vide their circular dated 5th of October, 2004 specifically on the subject of charge of extension fee for residential plots in Kapurthala Urban Estate, wherein it was decided to grant three years moratorium period for the purpose of construction w.e.f. 12th of June, 2002; they could charge the extension fee for non-construction for the years 2005 and 2006. It appears that the petitioner/complainant has misunderstood the meaning of moratorium. The meaning of the word moratorium as per Oxford English Dictionary is a legal authorization to debtors to postpone payment. No doubt the respondent/opposite party/PUDA had provided a moratorium period of three years w.e.f. 12th of June, 2002.
In this case the decision of the respondent/opposite party/PUDA can only be interpreted to mean that allottees were not required to pay extension fee/charge, if they were liable to pay, during the period 12th of June, 2002 to 11th of June, 2005.
The moratorium did not mean waiver of the extension fee. It is not disputed that the petitioner/complainant though was allotted the plot had initiated action for construction of the house on 22nd of June, 2006 by submitting the building plan for approval. Thus, the petitioner/complainant has to be held to have not complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment and the respondent/opposite party/PUDA has rightly levied the extension fee.
Thus, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
( R. C. JAIN, J. ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) (MEMBER) Mukesh