These two Revision Petitions by Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short “PUDA”) and its Estate Officer, are directed against a common order dated 1.10.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.1554 and 1609 of 2009.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant, Respondent herein and dismissed the Appeal preferred by PUDA, against the order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala Camp at Jalandhar in Complaint  RBT No.57/2009.  By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent, alleging deficiency in service on the part of PUDA in charging extension fee and delaying the issue of completion certificate in respect of a commercial building, viz. SCO 120, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar, had directed PUDA to issue completion/occupancy certificate in respect of the said building and also refund to the Respondent a sum of ₹26,989/-, charged in excess as extension fee, along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the said deposit, i.e., 8.7.2009, till realization and also pay costs of litigation, quantified at ₹3,000/-.

       Since the controversy pertains to the aforesaid two issues viz. delay in issue of Occupancy Certificate and charging of extension fee by PUDA for delay in completion of construction by the Respondent, we deem it unnecessary to narrate the facts in extenso.  It would suffice to note that the grievance of the Respondent/Complainant was that since he had completed construction of the building within time, he was not liable to pay any extension fee for delay in completion of construction as the delay in issue of the completion certificate was attributable only to PUDA, with a view to harass him.

       Having heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, as well as the original file pertaining to the plot/building in question, produced by PUDA, we are of the opinion that the order impugned in these Petitions is unsustainable.

       It is evident from the documents/correspondence between the parties, placed on record by the Complainant and the original record, that on laying of the plinth, the Complainant had requested PUDA to have the same inspected by its engineer.  On inspection, vide his report to the Divisional Engineer (Ph) dated 22.3.2006, the Estate Officer had reported that against the standard fixed plinth level of 2’9”, the plinth level checked at site was 3’6”.  Accordingly, vide letter dated 12.4.2006, the Complainant was informed that since, as per the report of the Divisional Engineer (Ph), the plinth level is incorrect and is not sanctionable, his application for issue of completion certificate was rejected.  The Complainant was advised to set right the plinth level and get it checked again by the Divisional Engineer (Ph), PUDA, Jalandhar, before proceeding further with the construction.  Thereafter some correspondence ensued between the Complainant and the Estate Officer and finally on 21.6.2007, the Complainant again wrote to the Estate Officer to issue completion certificate in respect of the said building, which, by that time, seems to have been completed.  After a gap of almost 8 months, on 20.2.2008, the Complainant requested the Estate Officer to expedite the matter, as the Junior Engineer in-charge had already inspected the building on 19.2.2008.  It appears that on receipt of the said letter, vide its notice dated 23.4.2008, the Complainant was asked to deposit a sum of ₹1,07,009/- towards extension fee and a sum of ₹29,040/- as the compounding fee for the violations in the building.  Though the compounding fee was deposited by the Complainant on 30.4.2008 but he did not deposit the extension fee on the ground that since the construction of the building had been completed by 22.4.2006, the extension fee for the year for 2007-08 was not payable by him.  The stand of the Complainant was not acceptable to PUDA and hence, vide their letter dated 6.8.2008, they asked the Complainant to deposit the extension fee at the earliest to facilitate issue of the completion certificate.  Finally, the Complainant deposited the said fee, vide receipt dated 8.7.2008, albeit under protest.  Ultimately, the completion certificate was issued by PUDA on 13.8.2008.

      Being aggrieved by the charging of the extension fee as also for the delay in issue of the completion certificate, as noted above, the Complainant filed the Complaint on 2.9.2009, finally culminating in the order, impugned in these Revision Petitions. 

       It is abundantly clear from the afore-noted facts, emerging from the original record that in so far as the issue of delay in issue of the completion certificate is concerned, it was mainly on account of non-payment of extension fee by the Complainant, the issue which he was contesting.  In so far as the question as to whether the Complainant was liable to pay the said extension fee is concerned, in our view the issue being highly contestable, particularly in view of the admission by the Complainant about the violation in the construction of the building, for which he voluntarily paid the compounding fee, we are in complete agreement with the lower Fora that there was no deficiency in service on the part of PUDA in delaying the issue of completion certificate on any unfounded or unreasonable ground.  In that view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference.

       Consequently, both the Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

       The Revision Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.