DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 234/2014
Date of Institution : 03.11.2014
Date of Decision : 10.07.2015
Dr. Harbans Singh son of Ajaib Singh retired Colonel, resident of Mani Singh Nagar, 25 Acre Scheme, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala through its General Power of Attorney, Ajaib Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of Mani Singh Nagar, 25 Acre Scheme, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The Improvement Trust, Barnala, Near L.I.C. Office, Barnala through its Chairman/Administrator, Barnala.
2. Executive Officer, The Improvement Trust, Barnala, Near L.I.C. Office, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. KR Goel counsel for the complainant
Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for the opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Dr. Harbans Singh son of Ajaib Singh through General Power of Attorney Ajaib Singh son of Dalip Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against The Improvement Trust, Barnala opposite party No. 1 and Executive Officer, The Improvement Trust, Barnala opposite party No. 2 (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a plot No. 25 in 25 Acre Scheme of the opposite parties, which was transferred to him on 5.5.1993, as such the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. It was alleged that the opposite parties issued a notice vide No. ITB-13/1162 dated 23.7.2013 to the complainant to the effect that he had not submitted his completion report and as such opposite parties imposed non construction fee of Rs. 73,500/- for six years from 1994-1999 and interest on it to the tune of Rs. 1,42,200/- from 1994 to 2013. The complainant has challenged this fee as illegal, against law and arbitrary on the grounds that in the year 1994 to 1998 there was no electricity, water and sewerage lines were not laid by the opposite parties. Moreover the house of the complainant was constructed in the year 1994-95 and he approached the opposite parties for the supply of the above facilities but opposite parties regretted their inability to provide the same at that time. Thereafter, opposite parties provided electricity from agricultural motor, water connection and sewerage connection on 12.2.1995, 27.7.1999 and 28.9.1999 respectively. Thus, it was alleged that due to these circumstances completion report could not be submitted earlier to that.
3. It is further submitted that the complainant constructed his house in the year 1994 and obtained electricity connection in the year 1995. He received a telephone connection on 15.3.1994. However, the opposite parties did not issue water and sewerage connection up till 28.9.1999. Hence opposite parties cannot impose penalty up to 28.9.1999. Moreover, the reports of the opposite parties show that house No. 25 of the complainant has been constructed before 1996. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and mal trade/unfair practice on the part of the opposite parties.
4. It is further submitted that the complainant deposited the above said amount under protest to avoid further harassment vide receipt No. 21 dated 22.8.2013 and he reserve his right to claim this amount from the opposite parties. Accordingly, he sent a letter to the Director, Local Government Department, Punjab, Chandigarh for claiming the refund of the above said amount of Rs. 2,15,700/- but no action has been taken by any higher authority against the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the relief that the opposite parties may be directed to refund the above said amount of Rs. 2,15,700/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The opposite parties may be further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on account of financial loss, mental torture, agony and inconvenience and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed joint written statement taking legal objections on the grounds of locus standi, estoppal, concealment of material facts, complaint can seek remedy for recovery by filing a civil suit before a Civil Court, maintainability, jurisdiction, non joinder of necessary parties and malafide.
6. On merits, it is submitted that Ajaib Singh son of Dalip Singh claiming himself to be a General Power of Attorney of the complainant is not legally entitled to file the present complaint. Moreover, Dr. Harbans Singh was not the original allotte of the plot in question rather the original allotte was one Pawan Singla son of Tilak Ram of Barnala, who had transferred the said plot to Dr. Harbans Singh. The said Dr. Harbans Singh had submitted his affidavits to the opposite parties duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Barnala thereby he had accepted the terms and conditions relating to the allotment of the plot as per the provision of Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of land and allotment of plots) Rules 1983. It is further submitted that complainant Dr. Harbans Singh wanted to get the sale deed of the said plot executed and registered in his favour from the opposite parties and thereupon vide letter dated 23.7.2013 he was intimated that during the processing of his application for the registration of the sale deed it was found that non-construction charges alongwith interest accrued thereon comes to Rs. 2,15,700/- which was outstanding against him and Dr. Harbans Singh was intimated through his alleged attorney. Therefore, the complainant himself voluntarily admitting and acknowledging his liability to pay the said amount and without any protest deposited Rs. 2,15,700/- with the opposite parties vide demand draft No. 249759 dated 22.8.2013 of PNB Main Branch, Barnala and got the receipt dated 22.8.2013. No protest was raised by the complainant with the opposite parties at the time of depositing the said amount. Even, the complainant himself admitted in his application dated 28.7.2013 submitted through Ajaib Singh Bhullar to the opposite parties on 5.8.2013 that the completion report regarding construction of house could not be submitted within time as the family of the complainant being abroad and away most of the time. Another application dated 2.8.2013 submitted to the opposite parties on 7.8.2013 also shows that the report could not be submitted inadvertently. The completion report dated 18.12.2012 was submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties for the first time on 4.2.2013. Thus, the demand of Rs. 2,15,700/- was quite legal and valid and according to rules. The opposite parties have denied all the other pleas of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of present complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence copy of power of attorney Ex.C-1, copy of transfer letter dated 10.5.1993 Ex.C-2, copy of letter No. 394 dated 23.8.2013 Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 21.7.2014 Ex.C-4, copy of electric bill Ex.C-5, copy of demand notice of telecommunication Ex.C-6, copy of telephone bill Ex.C-7, copy of survey report Ex.C-8, copy of letter dated 27.7.2013 Ex.C-9, copy of application dated 15.9.1999 Ex.C-10, copy of letter dated 21.8.2014 Ex.C-11, copy of receipt dated 22.8.2013 Ex.C-12, copy of protest letter dated 27.8.2013 Ex.C-13, affidavit of Ajaib Singh Power of attorney on complainant Ex.C-14 and closed his evidence.
6. To rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered affidavit of Gora lal EO Ex.OPs-1, copy of affidavits of Harbans Singh dated 11.1.1993 Ex.OPs-2 and Ex.OPs-3, copy of letter dated 28.7.2013 Ex.OPs-4, copy of application dated 2.8.2013 Ex.OPs-5, copy of completion report dated 18.12.2012 Ex.OPs-6, copy of site plan Ex.OPs-7, copy of letters dated 15.9.1999 Ex.OPs-8 and Ex.OPs-9, copies of letters/memos Ex.OPs-10 to Ex.OPs-16 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant has challenged the impugned recovery of Rs. 2,15,700/- as ordered by the opposite parties on two counts. Firstly the complainant has alleged that he has completed the construction on the plot in question within the stipulated period of three years from the date of allotment. Secondly the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that even otherwise as per the allotment letter there is no such condition as to imposition of non construction charges by the opposite parties. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment titled as Improvement Trust Barnala Versus Mrs. Shashi Kansal reported in 1999 (2) CLT-651.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant has not submitted the completion report within the stipulated period and the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, therefore, the opposite parties imposed the non construction fee and interest in view of the guidelines as contained in the circular/ instructions issued from time to time by the Government of Punjab. Moreover, this Forum has no competency to go into the correctness of demand of composition fee and extension fee/non construction fee. In their support they have made reliance on the case titled Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Anr. Versus Prem Singh Mann reported in 2008 (2) CLT-688 and Improvement Trust Barnala Versus Meena Modi reported in 2011 (3) CLT-171.
10. Now coming to the first limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant completed the construction within the stipulated period, the complainant has placed on file affidavit of Ajaib Singh Ex.C-14 holder of power of attorney of complainant wherein he reiterated his stand that the complainant constructed his house in the year 1994. However in the said affidavit he admitted that the opposite parties issued a notice dated 23.7.2013 to the complainant that he has not submitted completion report and the imposition of non construction fee. Apart from his affidavit the complainant has placed on file RTI Information from Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Sub Division, Barnala Ex.C-3, which shows that the sewerage connection was passed firstly in plot No. 27 on 29.10.1998 and another information Ex.C-4 give by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Sub Division Barnala showing that in the plot No. 25 the connection was passed on 27.9.1999. Ex.C-5 is the bill issued by the Electricity Board showing the issuance of bill dated 4.3.1995. Ex.C-6 is the demand from the Department of Telecommunication for depositing the amount of Rs. 2,000/- on or before 29.3.1994. Ex.C-7 is the receipt showing the deposit of telecommunication bill dated 1.8.1996. Ex.C-8 is another document alleged to be issued by the opposite parties showing the numbers of plots which have not raised the construction. Ex.C-10 is the letter written by the complainant to the E.O., Improvement Trust, Barnala dated 15.9.1999 for supply of the water connection. However, perusal of these letters by stretch of any imagination do not show that the complainant has completed his construction in 1994 and these have neither direct or indirect influence to restrain the complainant to raise the construction of his plot.
11. On the other hand the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Executive Officer of the opposite parties namely Gora Lal Ex.OP-1 wherein he has specifically stated that vide letter dated 23.7.2013 the complainant was intimated during the processing of his application for the registration of the sale deed regarding non construction charges alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 2,15,700/-. The Executive Officer further stated that the complainant himself voluntarily admitting and acknowledging his liability and without any protest deposited Rs. 2,15,700/- vide draft No. 249759 dated 22.8.2013 and got the receipt. The said officer further stated that even the complainant has admitted in his application dated 28.7.2013 Ex.OP-4 that the completion report regarding construction of house could not be submitted in time as the family of the complainant being abroad and away most of time. Similarly vide application dated 2.8.2013 Ex.OP-5 the complainant admitted that completion report could not be submitted inadvertently. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that construction was completed in the year 1994 is not successfully proved by the complainant.
12. Now coming to the second point, perusal of the allotment letter shows that the allotment was made to one Sh. Pawan Singla who was the original allotte and it was made on 24.9.1990. In the citation reported in 1999 (2) CLT-651 (supra) cited by complainant the plot was allotted in 1987 whereas the instructions issued by the Government in 1988 imposing non construction fee. But in the present case the allotment was done in the year 1990 and instructions of the Government were of the year 1988. Therefore, this citation can lend no help to the complainant.
13. On the other hand the judgment reported in 2008 (2) CLT-688 (supra) cited by the opposite parties it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi that “The Consumer Fora does not have jurisdiction to go into the validity of demand of composition fee and extension fee made from the complainant. In this ruling the decision of the case of HUDA Versus Sunita 2005 (2) SCC-479 was followed and order passed by Fora below quashing the demand were set aside and was held that the order passed by the Fora was not legally sustainable and the complaint was dismissed. It was further held that the Commission has got no jurisdiction into to the correctness of the demand of composition fee and extension fee which was made by the HUDA from the complainant.” Similar view was taken in the case reported in 2011 (3) CLT-171 (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as HUDA Versus Sunita 2005 (2) SCC-479 and the judgment reported in 2008 (II) CPJ-65 (NC) it was held that “Fora under the Consumer Protection act have no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the composition fee/non-construction fee/extension fee.”
14. As a result of the above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to avail his remedy of the Civil Court, if he is so advised. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
10th Day of July, 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
