DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.



Complaint no.561 of 17.9.2007. Date of Order 25.3.2009.



Rajiv Chawla s/o Ram Narain Chawla r/o 12 Green Park, Civil Lines, Ludhiana & owner of 1451, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana through GPA brother Sat Paul Chawla r/o 12, Green Park, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

Ö.Complainant.

Versus



Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through Estate Officer (GLADA) (Previously known as Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority).

Ö.Opposite party.



COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.



Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present: Sh. M.S. Sethi Adv. for the complainant.

Sh. B.S. Gill Adv. for opposite party.

O R D E R



T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:



1- This complaint is instituted by complainant through his general power of attorney and brother, for declaring demand of Rs.104300/- raised by opposite party for non construction charges for the year 2007, to be illegal; declaring demand of non construction charges for the year 2006 also to be illegal and refund of Rs.297080/- paid as non construction charges after setting aside the same and that the opposite party be directed to execute the conveyance deed qua the plot without further delay.

2- Aforesaid relief is claimed by complainant on the ground that he was allotted plot no.1451 measuring 400 sq.yds. in Sector 32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana vide letter dated 13.8.1994 of the Punjab Housing Development Board (predecessor in interest of opposite party). But opposite party vide letter dated 3.8.2007 demanded extension fee of Rs.104300/- for the year 2007 which is arbitrary and illegal. As he is not liable to pay the same, because in 2006, applied for site plan to raise construction of the plot. Paid fee of Rs.3500/- vide receipt dated 27.11.2006. His plan was approved. Complainant completed construction of ground floor during the month of December, 2006. After completion of construction, complainant wrote letter dated 29.12.2006 for giving completion certificate. Opposite party refused to issue completion certificate vide letter dated 3.4.2007 on the ground of deviation from the sanctioned plan and demanded Rs.19343/- which he deposited. Though he had not violated sanctioned plan and he was forced to pay penalty. Thereafter, opposite party issued occupation certificate vide letter dated 30.4.2007. Subsequently, applied for no due certificate vide receipt dated 9.4.2007, in order to get conveyance deed executed. Opposite party demanded stamp papers of Rs.118800/- and that amount was deposited with State Bank of India on 18.5.2007 towards stamp duty for execution of the conveyance deed. Hence, demanding non construction charges of Rs.104300/- for the year 2007, is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, as complainant has already completed construction during the year 2006, qua which, was issued occupation certificate dated 29.12.2006 by the opposite party. Further grievance of the complainant is that in 2004, had applied for no due certificate and opposite party then vide letter dated 27.2004,deamded Rs.171080/- as non construction charges. When complainant asked for sanction of his plan, they insisted payment of Rs.171080/- plus non construction charges till 2006, amounting to Rs.297080/-. He as such was compelled to pay Rs.297080/- on 13.11.2006, which amount has been illegally demanded by opposite party. As they had no right to claim non construction charges after 2006.

3- Opposite party in reply admitted that plot was allotted to the complainant. They have justified demand of non construction fee of Rs.104300/- for the year 2007 which was due from the complainant under PUDA Policy and terms and conditions of the allotment letter. When complainant intimated making construction, the JE visited the site and intimated vide letter dated 3.4.2007 regarding defects, shortcomings in construction. Construction was not as per site plan. Hence, compound fee was calculated which complainant deposited. Issuance of occupation certificate dated 30.4.2007 admitted. They have claimed that Rs.118800/- was not deposited with them by the complainant and he purchased the stamp paper from the treasury, by depositing the amount in the bank, for purchase of stamp paper, in order to get conveyance deed executed. Extension fee demanded for 2007, is justified and legal. Upto 2004, extension fee of Rs.171080/- was due, which complainant did not deposit. Hence, for the year 2006, this amount swelled to Rs.297080/-. Extension charges have been claimed upto 2007 as per terms and conditions of allotment letter. They have never refused to execute conveyance deed.

4- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective cousnels.

5- Parties in this case would be bound by allotment letter, copy of which is Ex.R2. It was under this letter that plot in question was allotted to the complainant. Condition no.9 of the allotment letter reflects that allottee was to complete construction of the entire permissible area (i) on ground floor, within 3 years; (ii) on first floor, within 5 years; (iii) on second floor, within 7 years; (iv) rest of the area, if any, within 10 years, from the date of allotment.

6- Thus, it is apparent that it was condition precedent in the allotment letter, to raise construction on floor-wise, within particular years from the date of allotment.

7- So, in these circumstances, we have to see whether construction, as per sanctioned plan, of his house, was made by the complainant within stipulated period of allotment letter. As occupation certificate dated 30.4.2007 Ex.C4 issued by opposite party to the complainant goes to show that complainant had given notice of partial construction of the building. He consequently was permitted to occupy the partial completed building. No material is placed by the complainant on the record, as to what was his plan of construction and how much storeyed building, he was permitted to construct by opposite party on the allotted plot. In the absence of such material, it would not be feasible for us to conclude whether non construction charges, as claimed by opposite party from the complainant, are illegal and unjustified. Therefore, in the absence of appropriate material on the record, we refrain from concluding whether non construction charges, as claimed, are legal or illegal. For the reasons that he had made partial construction and we donít know whether such partial construction was on ground floor or upto first floor or second floor, because he was required to complete construction floor-wise, within stipulated period, as mentioned in the allotment letter.

8- In these circumstances, we can not set aside demand of Rs.104300/- raised under letter Ex.C5 ( Ex.R5) of the opposite party due to non construction charges.

9- Complainant as per notice Ex.R5 dated 3.4.2007 of opposite party had deviated from the sanctioned plan and consequently, was required to pay charges of Rs.19343/-, which he had paid. So on such amount also, we can not pass any order.

10- Similarly, non construction charges of Rs.171080/- were demanded from the complainant vide letter dated 2.7.2004 Ex.R1, which according to complainant, were enhanced subsequently by opposite party upto Rs.297080/- and paid under protest. But such charges were paid due to non construction charges upto 2006. Hence if paid, were legally payable by him under letter of allotment.

11- Now adverting to point of execution of conveyance deed. For obtaining conveyance deed from complainant, opposite party got deposited from complainant, Rs.118800/- in the name of Estate Officer, in the SBI, Ludhiana, Treasury Branch, as evidenced from voucher Ex.C9 of the bank dated 18th May, 2007. As complainant has deposited the amount for purchase of conveyance deed, so opposite party would be bound and liable to execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant. By not doing so, they would guilty of not rendering proper service to its own consumer. Hence, we partly allow this complaint and as a result, direct opposite party, to execute conveyance deed of the plot in question in favour of the complainant within 45 days of receipt of copy of order. But this order shall not prevent opposite party from enforcing the terms and conditions of allotment letter, pertaining to extension fee. In peculiar circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear own costs. Copy of order be provided to parties fee of charge. File be completed and consigned.



Announced on 25.3.2009. T.N. Vaidya, President.

(Gurmeet Singh).