State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab Urban Planning & Development ... vs Dr. Krishan Chander Garg on 15 October, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.331 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 05.03.2007.
Date of Decision: 15.10.2013.
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, Ferozepur Road,
near BRS Nagar, Ludhiana through Estate Officer (Previously known as
Punjab Housing Development Board)
.....Appellant.
Versus
Dr. Krishan Chander Garg S/o Sh. Chandan Ram Garg, R/o 536,
Ludhiana Stock Exchange Building, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
22.12.2006 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, appellant/opposite party (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").First Appeal No.331 of 2007 2
2. Facts in brief are that Dr. Krishan Chandan Garg, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, asserting that he applied for a residential plot, measuring 400 sq.yds. in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana with the appellant, earlier known as Punjab Housing Development Board, in the year 1994 and plot No.1503 measuring 400 sq. yds. was allotted to the respondent vide allotment letter No.274 dated 13.08.1994 for a sum of Rs.4.80 lacs. A sum of Rs.1.12 lacs being 25% of the sale price of the site was paid vide draft No.17789/420 through registered letter receipt no.97 dated 10.09.1994. The appellant asked the respondent to abide by the conditions of the said allotment letter subject to the provisions of Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 and policies framed thereunder by the Board from time to time. The remaining amount of Rs.3.60 lacs was to be paid in six annual equal equate installments along with 10% p.a. as per the following schedule:-
No. of Due Date Payable Amount (In Rs.) Installments 1. 01.08.1995 96,000 2. 01.08.1996 90,000 3. 01.08.1997 84,000 4. 01.08.1998 78,000 5. 01.08.1999 72,000 6. 01.08.2000 66,000
3. After the payment of the entire amount, the deed of conveyance was to be executed and the ownership of the site was to be vested in the Board till the whole consideration was to be paid. As First Appeal No.331 of 2007 3 per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the allottee was liable to pay extension fee (non-construction charges) as per the schedule mentioned therein.
4. The Punjab Housing Development Board issued the said letter in pursuance of the Act, 1972 and the said act was abolished and the PUDA Act, 1995 and PUDA Rules were framed.
5. In the year 2005, the respondent applied for 'No Objection Certificate' for issuance of conveyance deed vide application dated 09.09.2005, but in the reply dated 22.09.2005, the appellant asked the respondent to pay Rs.2,16,407/- due towards the arrears, but the nature of the arrears was not disclosed. On representation, the officials of the appellant disclosed that the same was for non-construction charges from the year 2000 onwards on the basis of letter dated 15.01.1998, but the same is in violation of Rule 13 of PUDA Act, 1995 and the appellant is deficient in rendering service. The appellant has no right to claim the extension fee. The appellant did not hand over the possession and there was no question of raising construction or payment of non-construction charges. For the last 11 years, no notice was served on the respondent to the effect that he is defaulter in making the payment.
6. It was prayed that the illegal demand of Rs.2,16,407/- may be quashed and Rs.50,000/- be awarded as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The appellant be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs on account of escalation of cost in construction material and the total relief claimed is possession of plot valuing Rs.4.80 lacs, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.2.00 lacs for escalation of cost and Rs.2,16,407/- as claimed by the appellant.
First Appeal No.331 of 2007 4
7. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the District Forum has no jurisdiction.
8. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent applied for a residential plot and he was allotted the plot in question and he paid 24% of the amount and the remaining amount was to be paid in six installments. It was further submitted that after making full payment of the price of the plot, the respondent was supposed to submit the requisite stamp papers duly typed and signed by the allottee, for further action i.e. for registration of the conveyance deed, but as per Condition No.8 of the allotment letter No.274 dated 13.08.1994, he failed to do so and the conveyance deed could not be executed and the appellant is not at fault in any manner. The ownership of the site was of the Board till the entire amount is paid. The extension fee was revised by the appellant from time to time and the respondent is liable to pay the same. He has no right to get extension and the same can be allowed by Estate Officer after considering the facts. A sum of Rs.2,16,080/- pertains to extension fee for not raising the construction for the period from 2000 to 2005 and Rs.327/- is the penal interest on account of the late deposit of installments. In addition to the above, a sum of Rs.81,000/- has also become due to the appellant on 01.01.2006 on account of non-construction charges and the detail was given to the respondent. 'No Due Certificate' cannot be issued till the arrears are paid. Till date, the respondent has not submitted the proposed plan of construction for sanction. The extension fee has been demanded as per the policy and the rules. Rates of extension fee were amended from time to time and the respondent is liable to pay the same. The respondent has not taken any steps to take possession of the plot and First Appeal No.331 of 2007 5 to raise the construction. The extension fee was not demanded for three years and it has been charged w.e.f. 2000 only. The allottees were requested to take demarcation of the plot through public notice and to raise the construction after getting the site plan approved from the PUDA authorities. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum relying upon the decision of the State Commission in F.A. No.1382 of 2005 decided on 21.02.2006, held that since the demand of non-construction charges has been raised for the year 1997 to 2000, as such, this demand will be governed by Rule 13 of 1995 Rules and prior to 1995 Rules, the appellant would be at liberty to charge the extension fee in accordance with prevalent rules. The complaint was partly allowed and the appellant was directed to charge the non-construction fee in accordance with rules and regulations as per Rule 13 of 1995 Rules as per the law mentioned in above authority. The appellant was further directed to refund the amount if it has been received in excess than the demand raised vide letter Ex.R-3.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.12.2006, the appellant has come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the appellant can charge the non-construction charges as per the law First Appeal No.331 of 2007 6 amended from time and Rule-13 of 1995 Rules has been further amended vide notification dated 8th October, 2001 by the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Housing and Development. It was further argued that the law laid down in Civil Writ Petition No.13648 of 1998 titled as "Tehal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors." decided on 04.05.2998 as well as Civil Writ Petition No.18986 of 2001 titled as "Sant Kaur Jabbi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.", decided on 31.10.2002 is not applicable after the above notification. It was further contended that the order passed in case 'Narinder Singh Nanda Vs PUDA", Revision Petition No.2125 of 2006 decided on 27.05.2009 has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is subjudiced. It has been argued that the appellant is competent to amend and modify the rates as provided under Rule 13 of 1995 Rules.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and the Hon'ble National Commission in above revision petition has already set aside the various instructions, orders issued by the appellant for modification of the rates and the appellant cannot charge the rates more than the rates provided under Rule 13 above mentioned. It has been contended that the notification dated 08.10.2001 is also on similar footing and is not applicable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tehal Singh's case (supra) and Sant Kaur Jabbi's case (supra). The order passed by the District Forum is legal and the appeal may be dismissed.
15. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other material placed on the file.
First Appeal No.331 of 2007 7
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance on the notification dated 8th October, 2001 and on the strength of this notification, it was vehemently argued that the Govt. of Punjab has amended the Punjab Regional & Town Planning and Development (General Rules), 1995 and it can charge the non-construction fee as per the amended rules. This argument of the counsel for the appellant is not tenable, because the other instructions and letters issued by the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the notification dated 08th October, 2001 was considered by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Narinder Singh Nanda Vs PUDA" Revision Petition No.2125 of 2006 decided on 27.05.2009 and at Page-10 of the order, it was observed as follows:-
"PUDA, thereafter, made another attempt to nullify the effect of the Judgment and issued another Notification on 08.10.2001, which was published in the Punjab Gazette on 28.10.2001. These subsequent instructions were also struck down by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sant Kaut Jabbi's case (supra)."
17. The above order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and at Page-8, it was observed as follows:-
"Judgments of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Tehal Singh's and Sant Kaur Jabbi's cases (supra) have attained finality, as the Special Leave Petitions filed against them have already been dismissed."
18. From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant can charge the non-construction fee as per Rule-13 of 1995 Rules and the subsequent notification is of no avail to the appellant. First Appeal No.331 of 2007 8
19. This Commission in First Appeal No.457 of 2007 in case "Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs Rachhpal Kaur", decided on 28.03.2012, has passed the similar order.
20. Likewise, in First Appeal No.650 of 2007 in case "Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs Sanjiv Vashist", decided on 25.09.2012 and First Appeal No.574 of 2010 in case "Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs Surinder Singh", decided on 17.09.2013, this Commission passed the similar orders.
21. In view of above discussion as well as the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 22.12.2006 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
23. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 01.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member October 15, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)