State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharat Bhushan vs Greater Mohali Area Development ... on 18 June, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019
Date of institution : 02.08.2019
Reserved on : 15.06.2020
Date of decision : 18.06.2020
Bharat Bhushan s/o Om Chand, r/o 1680, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.
Phone No.98157-98136
e-mail: [email protected]
.......Complainant
Versus
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector
62, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Chairman / Estate Officer /
Authorized Signatory.
Phone No.0172-2215522 & 0172-2215503
e-mail: [email protected]
........Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint under Section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
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
Argued by:-
For the complainant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate.
For the opposite party : Shri Anuj Kohli, Advocate.
Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 2
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
The complainant, Bharat Bhushan, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "C.P. Act") for issuance of following directions to the opposite party:-
i) to set aside the letter dated 29.4.2019 demanding ₹2,93,836/- as non-construction charges and ₹52,890/-
on account of GST from the complainant;
ii) to produce occupation as well as completion certificate with respect to the site where the complainant was allotted plot;
iii) to pay ₹2,00,000/-, as compensation, for causing mental
tension, harassment and mental agony; and
iv) to pay ₹55,000/-, as cost of litigation.
Facts of the Complaint:
2. Brief facts as narrated in the complaint are to the effect that one Ajmer Singh son of Shri Teja Singh, resident of Village Dhakoli, Himmatgarh, Zirakpur, applied for a residential plot by submitting an application along with ₹6,00,000/- after taking loan from Bank of Baroda. In the draw of lots held on 25.9.2010 said Ajmer Singh remained successful. Thereafter Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, was issued in favour of said Ajmer Singh with respect to plot measuring 500 square yards in Aerocity, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Ajmer Singh further paid amounts of ₹9,00,000/- and ₹8,10,000/- on Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 3 12.4.2011 and 19.9.2011, vide receipts Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. It is further averred that thereafter said Ajmer Singh sold the said plot to Rakesh Gupta and Mrs. Charu Garg and got transferred the said LOI in their names, vide letter dated 10.1.2012, Ex.C-5. They further deposited amounts of ₹7,90,300/- on 20.4.2012, ₹7,58,500/- on 25.10.2012 and ₹1,500/- on 7.3.2013, vide receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8. They further got transferred the said LOI in the name of the complainant, vide letter of transfer of intent dated 12.3.2013, Ex.C11, after making payment of ₹1,52,500/-, vide draft dated 6.3.2013, Ex.C-10. It is further averred that thereafter a residential plot bearing No.5030 in Block F at Aero City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was allotted to the complainant, vide letter dated 27.6.2014, Ex.C-12 and after about six months the opposite party issued allotment letter dated 28.1.2015, Ex.C-13 in favour of the complainant with respect to the said plot for which total sale consideration was fixed as ₹60,00,000/-. It is further averred that said Ajmer Singh, Rakesh Gupta along with Charu Garg and the present complainant paid ₹69,07,800/- to the opposite party as per details given in the table in para no.7 of the complaint, which include the transfer fees etc. In fact the total sale consideration of the plot was only ₹60,00,000/-. Opposite party even issued "No Dues Certificate" on 28.1.2015, Ex.C-19. Ultimately possession of the allotted plot was handed over to the complainant on 24.3.2015, vide letter Ex.C-20. Thereafter the opposite party got executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant on 3.6.2015, Ex.C21. After taking possession of the allotted plot the Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 4 complainant allegedly started construction at the site and completed the same in March 2019. The complainant thereafter submitted all the documents and requested the opposite party for issuance of completion certificate on 29.3.2019, Ex.C-22. It is further averred that thereafter the opposite party sent a letter dated 29.4.2019, Ex.C23, demanding ₹2,93,836/- as 'Non-Construction Charges' along with ₹52,890/- on account of GST. The complainant allegedly protested this demand but nobody listened. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.7.2019, Ex.C-24, through registered receipt Ex.C-25. It is further averred that as per Rule 13 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development General Rules, 1995 opposite party can charge only ₹1.50P per square meter for first year and ₹2/- per square meter for second year. As per clause 10 of the allotment letter dated 28.1.2015, Ex.C13, three years' time for completing the construction was to start from the said date. It is further averred that even basic amenities have not been provided at the site and reference was made to the photographs Ex.C-26 to Ex.C-30. The opposite party had wrongly calculated the non-construction charges as ₹2,93,836/- by taking the period from 28.4.2018 till 30.6.2019 i.e. 14 months and 3 days, which is against law. The complainant has already raised the construction over the plot on 31.3.2019 and also deposited the relevant documents with the opposite party but it started demanding ₹2,93,836/- along with ₹52,890/- on account of GST, which is not payable by the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service and Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 5 adoption of unfair trade practice the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to the opposite party. Defence of the opposite party:
3. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The alleged dispute is qua non-construction charges, which is not a 'consumer dispute'. The letter of allotment dated 28.1.2015 contains an arbitration clause. Hence the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator. The complaint is gross misuse of process of law and should be dismissed with exemplary costs. The matter cannot be decided in summary proceedings. On merits, the allotment of plot in question in the name of Ajmer Singh and thereafter transfer of LOI in favour of Rajesh Gupta and Mrs. Charu Garg and thereafter in favour of the complainant in the manner stated in the complaint was admitted. The payment of ₹69,07,800/-
as detailed in para no.7 of the complaint has also been admitted. However, it is stated that the total amount paid in respect of the plot in question include price of the plot, penal interest and transfer fee etc. The averments of the complaint regarding start of construction and completion of construction on the plot in question were denied for want of knowledge. It is admitted that the complainant had applied for issuance of completion/occupation certificate, vide application dated 29.3.2019 but it is denied that the complainant Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 6 submitted all the documents and completed all the formalities with a request for issuance of completion certificate/occupation certificate. Para no.14 of the complaint has been denied as wrong and incorrect. It is submitted that opposite party is not charging any excessive amount. The charges have been made as per the existing policy of GMADA according to which, opposite party is charging 2% for first two years and 2.5% for 3 to 4 years and 3% for 5 to 6 years. Copy of the existing policy regarding non-construction charges is Ex.OP-2. The complainant was rightly sent the impugned letter demanding the amount mentioned therein on account of non- construction charges. Even no complete construction has been carried out. It has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
Rejoinder to the written statement:
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the opposite party controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. It has been averred that the opposite party has relied upon the rate as per Existing Policy, which has been annexed as Ex.OP-2. A perusal of Ex.OP-2 shows that the said notification is dated 15.1.1998. Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has held that the said notification is an act of ultravires as the Rules were not got sanctioned from the Legislative Assembly, Punjab and set aside the same in CWP No.18986 of 2002 titled "Tehal Singh and Anr. v. Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 7 State of Punjab and Ors.". Further notification dated 9.6.2010 directly by the Governor of Punjab is also ultravires in view of Section 83 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. A prayer for acceptance of the complaint and grant of relief as sought for in the complaint has been made. Evidence of the Parties:
5. In support of his case the complainant annexed with the complaint his own self-attested affidavit and documents i.e. copy of Certificate dated 18.4.2011 as Ex.C-1, copy of letter of intent dated 18.3.2011 as Ex.C-2, copies of receipts dated 17.4.2011, 19.9.2011, 20.4.2012, 25.10.2012, 7.3.2013, 12.3.2013, 31.7.2013, 7.5.2014, 19.1.2015 and 25.7.2015 as Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-18, copy of copy of letter dated 10.1.2012 as Ex.C5, copies of application form and draft dated 6.3.2013 as Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10, copy of letter of intent dated 12.3.2013 as Ex.C-11, copy of draw of result dated 27.6.2014 as Ex.C-12, copy of allotment letter dated 28.1.2015 as Ex.C-13, copy of "No Dues Certificate" dated 28.1.2015 as Ex.C-19, copy of letter of possession dated 24.3.2015 as Ex.C-20, copy of registry/sale deed dated 3.6.2015 as Ex.C-21, copy of acknowledgement dated 29.3.2019 as Ex.C-22, copy of letter dated 29.4.2019 as Ex.C-23, copy of legal notice and registered receipt dated 18.7.2019 and 19.7.2019 as Ex.C-24 and Ex.C-25 and photographs Ex.C-26 to Ex.C-30. The complainant also annexed with the rejoinder documents i.e. sale deed and collector rate as Ex.C-31 and Ex.C-32.
Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 8
6. On the other hand, the opposite party annexed with the written statement self-attested affidavit of its Estate Officer, Sanjeev Kumar and documents i.e. copy of allotment letter dated 28.1.2015 as Ex.OP-1, copy of letter dated 15.1.1998 regarding grant of extension in construction period as Ex.OP-2, copy of Construction Extension/Possession Charges Breakup as Ex.OP-3 and copy of letter dated 12.9.2019 issued by opposite party to the complainant regarding non-issuance of occupation certificate for want of deposit of necessary fee as Ex.OP-4.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. I have gone through the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties. Contentions of the complainant:
8. The sum and substance of oral as well as written arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the issue regarding charging of non-construction charges falls in the definition of 'consumer dispute' as defined in the C.P. Act and it has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No.4272 of 2015 "Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Now GLADA) v. Vidya Chetal" and SLP (C) No.5237 of 2015 "Punjab Urban Development Authority and another v. Ram Singh"
decided on 16.9.2019. Thus, this Commission has power to set aside the demand of Non-Construction Charges, if found illegal. It was further contended that the plot in question was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 28.1.2015, Ex.C-13 and as Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 9 per clause 9 thereof, the complainant was required to take physical possession of the site within 90 days of the issue of that letter on "as is where is" basis upto 27.4.2015. As per clause 10 of the allotment letter the complainant was to complete the building as per the approved building plan within a period of 3 years from the date of possession of land. The complainant took possession of the plot in question on 24.3.2015, vide Possession Certificate, Ex.C-20 and as such, he could have raised the construction upto 23.3.2018 as per clause 10 of the allotment letter. It was further contended that the sale deed was also executed on 3.6.2015, Ex.C-21 and no objection was raised by the opposite party for payment of such amount. Now, when the complainant sought completion certificate, the demand notice dated 29.4.2019, Ex.C-23, was issued to him demanding a sum of ₹2,93,836/- as Non-Construction Charges upto 30.6.2019 and another sum of ₹52,890/- as GST. Such a demand notice is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No details or calculations have been given in the said demand notice/letter as to how it had reached the figure of ₹2,93,836/-. It was further contended that there is no development at the site and the opposite party cannot otherwise levy such charges. It was prayed that this complaint be allowed as prayed for.
9. On the other hand, the sum and substance of the oral as well as written arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the complainant had stepped into the shoes of Ajmer Singh i.e. the original allottee and he is bound to abide by all the terms and Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 10 conditions of Letter of Intent, Ex.C-2 issued in favour of said original allottee. It was specifically mentioned in the transfer of letter of intent dated 10.1.2012, Ex.C-5, firstly which was issued in the names of Rakesh Gupta and Charu Garg that the transferees shall abide by the terms and conditions of the said Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2. Similarly when the complainant got transferred the said Letter of Intent in his name, vide Transfer of Letter of Intent dated 12.3.2013, Ex.C-11, he is also bound to abide by all the terms and conditions of the said Letter of Intent, Ex.C-2. It was further contended that as per clause 17 of the said Letter of Intent, Ex.C-2, the possession of the said plot was to be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance thereof i.e. upto 17.9.2013. Otherwise it will be deemed possession after the expiry of 30 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2. Since the complainant had stepped into the shoes of Ajmer Singh, the original allottee, possession of the said plot was to be taken by 17.9.2013 as per clause 17 thereof and construction over the said plot was to be completed within three years therefrom upto 16.9.2016. Construction is still not complete at the site as no building plan has been annexed on the file by the complainant without which construction cannot be raised. It was further contended that this Commission has no power to go into the veracity of the statutory charges levied by the opposite party as per the provisions of the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 11 (General Rules), 1995 and the rules framed thereunder and other instructions issued by GMADA from time to time. Therefore, the demand letter dated 29.4.2019, Ex.C-23, demanding ₹2,93,836/- as non-construction charges and ₹52,890/- as GST is just and legal and is liable to be sustained. There is no merit in the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Consideration of Contentions:
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides oral as well as written.
11. So far as the jurisdiction of this Commission to go into the veracity of demand of statutory dues i.e. non-construction charges in the present complaint by the opposite party is concerned, this issue is no more res integra. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.22 of the judgment dated 16.9.2019 in Vidya Chetal's case (supra) has held as under:-
"22. Therefore, in line with the law laid down by us, we hold that the determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a "deficiency in service", can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act. The decision of this Court in the case of Sunita (supa), wherein it was held that NCDRC has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legitimacy of the aforementioned statutory dues, was rendered without considering any of Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 12 the previous judgments of this Court and the objects of the Act. Consequently, the law laid down in the aforesaid case does not hold good before the eyes of law and is thereby overruled."
In view of this, this Commission has power/jurisdiction to hear the issue of veracity of levying of non-construction charges, extension fee etc. as the same are statutory dues.
12. It is an admitted fact that Letter of Intent was issued on 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, in favour of the original allottee; namely, Ajmer Singh. Clause 17 thereof reads as under:-
"17. The possession of the said plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance of this Letter of Intent. In case for any reason, GMADA is unable to deliver the possession of plot within this stipulated period, you will have a right to withdraw from the scheme by moving an application to the Estate Officer and in such case GMADA shall refund the entire amount deposited by the applicant along with 10% simple interest. Apart from this, there shall be no other liability of the Authority."
A perusal of above reproduced clause 17 of the Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, reveals that the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance thereof Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 13 i.e. upto 17.9.2013. It is also an admitted fact that initially the said LOI, Ex.C-2, was transferred in the names of Rakesh Gupta and Mrs. Charu Garg, vide, Transfer of Letter of Intent, dated 10.1.2012, Ex.C-5, subject to the condition that they shall have to abide by the terms and conditions of the said Letter of Intent as well as the provisions of Punjab Regional Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 and all instructions/guidelines issued thereafter as well as the Aerocity Allotment Scheme. Thereafter the complainant got transferred the said LOI in his name, vide Transfer of Letter of Intent dated 12.3.2013, Ex.C-11 subject to the same condition that he shall have to abide by the terms and conditions of the said Letter of Intent as well as the provisions of Punjab Regional Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 and all instructions/guidelines issued thereafter as well as the Aerocity Allotment Scheme. It is also admitted that the complainant was allotted Plot bearing No.5030 measuring 500 square yard, Aerocity in SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 28.1.2015, Ex.C-13. Clauses 9 and 10 of the said allotment letter read as under:-
"9. The allottee shall be required to take physical possession of the site within 90 days of the issue of this allotment letter. The site shall be offered on "as is where is" basis and the allottee shall not be entitled to claim any rebate or refund on any ground whatsoever. The Authority will not be responsible for levelling the uneven site. In case allottee fails to take the Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 14 possession of the plot allotted within 90 days, it shall be presumed that the allottee has taken over the possession. In case of non-feasibility of plot/site the allottee should inform the Estate Officer in writing before lapse of 90 days. After taking over the physical possession, the allottee shall submit the building plans within the 60 days to Estate Officer, GMADA, for approval by the Competent Authority.
10. The allottee shall complete the building as per the approved building plan within a period of 3 years from the date of possession of land failing which the Estate Officer may resume the plot or building or both, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of Section 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. This time limit may be extended by the Estate Officer concerned on payment of extension fee as may be determined from time to time, if he/she is satisfied that failure to complete the building within said period was due to a cause beyond the control of allottee. But allottee cannot claim this extension in time limit as a matter of right."
A collective perusal of above reproduced clauses 9 and 10 of the allotment letter reveals that possession was to be taken by the allottee within 90 days of the issue of the allotment letter dated 28.1.2015 i.e. upto 27.4.2015 and the construction was to be Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 15 completed as per the approved building plans within three years from the date of taking possession of the said plot. The stand of the complainant is that the terms and conditions of this allotment letter are binding on the parties, whereas the stand of the opposite party is that the complainant stepped into the shoes of original allottee and the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, are binding on the parties, for which the complainant had also given undertaken in the Transfer of Letter of Intent dated 12.3.2013, Ex.C-11. In the light of these facts it is to be found out as to what is the date of possession and from which date three years' period for raising construction is to be counted i.e. whether from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2 or from the date of issuance of allotment letter dated 28.1.2015 in favour of the complainant?
13. First of all, it would be appropriate to deal with the Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2 and its effect. It is pre-requisite for creation of any legally binding right that party should enter into an Agreement. Many a times before entering the same letter of intent is issued so as to agree and specify the upfront key terms of the proposed transaction. In fact it is a pre-contractual stage. Now it is to be seen whether it is binding document or based merely on intention of the parties on the basic structure of the transaction. It is well settled legal position that to enter into an agreement is neither enforceable nor it confers any right upon the parties. In common parlance Letter of Intent is not intended to bind either party and Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 16 ultimately to enter into a contract but it depends upon the wording of the Letter of Intent, whether it is binding on the parties. In the present case it is an admitted fact that under the LOI dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, various conditions were mentioned and in pursuance of those conditions firstly the original allottee takes many steps and makes payment, which resulted into creating a right on the basis of this document. In this manner, if we read the conditions of this LOI, it confers a right on both the parties. So far as the original allottee is concerned, he will have to comply with this LOI to get participated in the draw of lots for allotment of specific number of plot. Otherwise no right is accrued to him. Reference in this regard may be made to judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in case "Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others" reported in AIR 2000 (P&H) 245 in which it has been held that "it is true that the Letter of Intent issued by HAREDA did not create a vested right in favour of the petitioner to be awarded contract which depended upon the acceptance of DPR but in view of the fact that after the issuance of Letter of Intent the petitioner had taken various steps for award of contract and had spent considerable amount and the official respondents did not find anything wrong with the DPR did create a legitimate expectation that in the absence of any adverse factor, the contract would be awarded to it." In this manner, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the LOI, Ex.C-2, were binding on the original allottee. Thereafter Rakesh Gupta and Charu Garg got transferred the said LOI, vide Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 17 Transfer of Letter of Intent dated 10.1.2012 in which they also undertook to abide by all the terms and conditions of the LOI dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2. Similarly the complainant also got transferred the said LOI, Ex.C-2, in his favour, vide Transfer of Letter of Intent dated 12.3.2013, Ex.C-11 and also undertook to abide by all the terms and conditions of the earlier LOI dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, issued in favour of Ajmer Singh, the original allottee. As per clause 17 of the LOI dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, the possession of the plot in question was to be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works at site within a period of 30 months from the date of issuance of the Letter of Intent. The Letter of Intent is dated 18.3.2011 and, as such, the possession was to be handed over to the allottee upto 17.9.2013. It is also a fact that as per clause 9 in the allotment letter dated 28.1.2015, Ex.C-13, in favour of the complainant, he was required to take possession of the plot within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance thereof i.e. upto 27.4.2015. Further as per clause 10 of the said allotment letter the construction was to be raised over the said plot within a period of three years from the date of receipt of the possession of the plot in question after getting the building plans approved from the competent authorities. A perusal of clauses 9 and 10 of the allotment letter, Ex.C-13, apparently reveals that the possession was required to be taken within 90 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter but as per the Letter of Intent dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C2, it was required to be taken within 30 months from the date of Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 18 issuance of Letter of Intent, otherwise it will be a deemed possession. However, as per the wording of clause 17 of the LOI dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, the possession of the said plot was to be handed over to the allottee after completion of development works within 30 months from the date of issuance of the LOI. No evidence has been produced on record by either of the parties as to when the development at the site was completed by the opposite party but the fact remains that the allotment letter is to be issued only after development as per clause 25 of the LOI dated 18.3.2011, Ex.C-2, which reads as under:-
"25. The draw of lots for ascertaining the plot number will be held later on after the completion of development works which will be subject to the EIA clearance from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India."
In this manner it can be clearly concluded that specific number of the plot was allotted to the complainant after completion of development works at the site, vide allotment letter dated 28.1.2015, Ex.C-13. Hence, the terms of the allotment letter, Ex.C-13, would apply for the purpose of raising construction over the plot in question.
14. It is the own averment of the complainant in para no.16 of the complaint that non-construction charges have been claimed by the opposite party, vide demand letter dated 29.4.2019, Ex.C-23, for the period from 28.4.2018 till 30.6.2019 i.e. for 14 months and 3 days. In my opinion even if I accept the date of allotment as 28.1.2015 i.e. Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 19 from the date of allotment, even then as per clauses 9 and 10 thereof the construction was required to be completed over the plot in question within a period of three years from the date of receipt of possession of the same. It is also an admitted fact that the possession of the plot in question was taken over by the complainant on 24.3.2015, vide Possession Certificate, Ex.C-20 and thereafter sale deed was executed on 3.6.2015, vide Ex.C-21. Therefore, the period of three years for raising the construction is to be counted from 24.3.2015 i.e. upto 23.3.2018. So as per the own averments of the complainant the calculation of non-construction charges from 28.4.2018 till the date of completion of the construction appears to be correct as the complainant has failed to place on record any document when he got approved the building plans from the competent authorities as per the terms of the allotment letter and the provisions of the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development General Rules, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder and various guidelines/instructions issued by GMADA from time to time. Therefore, I do not find any fault in the impugned demand letter dated 29.4.2019, Ex.C-23, issued by the opposite party so far as the demand of non-construction charges is concerned.
15. Further issue raised by the learned counsel for the complainant is that no details/calculations have been given to the complainant on the basis of which the impugned demand has been raised, vide demand letter dated 29.4.2019, Ex.C-23. In this regard I am of the view that non-construction charges are to be charged from the Consumer Complaint No.594 of 2019 20 complainant with effect from 28.4.2018 till the date of completion of the construction by the complainant. So far as the rate at which such charges are charged and the details/calculations of the impugned demand, Ex.C-23, is concerned, I direct the opposite party to furnish the complete details of the calculation i.e. the rate at which it has raised the demand. Needful be done by the opposite party within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16. In view of my above discussion, this complaint is disposed of with the aforesaid direction to the opposite party.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT June 18, 2020 Bansal