BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

  Complaint No.381 of 2017                         Date of Instt. 06.10.2017                       Date of Decision: 12.01.2021

Varinder Singh aged   years, son of Sh.Kundan Singh, R/o H.No. 3, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh c/o Jasbir Singh 441-A, Surya Enclave, Chogiti Bye Pass, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.       Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Jalandhar, Through its Chairman.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, No.1, Jalandhar through its Sub Divisional Officer.

…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer  Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

MRS.JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :

For complainant              :        Smt.Harleen Kaur, Advocate

For OP no.1                             :         Sh.Sachin Sharda, Advocate

For OP no.2                             :         Sh.Rajat Chopra, Advocate 

ORDER:-

Per  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.                 The present complaint has been filed by complainant Varinder Singh against the OPs on the averments that he started construction of the residential house after sanction of the site plan by OP no.1 and completed the said construction on 31.12.2012. He applied for electric connection on 27.11.2012, vide no. BA16NO594 and the requisite fee of Rs.3135/- was duly deposited, vide receipt no. 594 with OP no.2. The meter was installed on 15.01.2013, vide memo no. 50.  The spot inspection of the construction and completion of the same was duly conducted by ATE.  The report of the said inspection was submitted by the said official to OP no.1 and it was orally informed to the complainant that the construction of building was completed on the date of said inspection.  He had also made application dated 07.10.2015 which was duly received by OP no.1 requesting for refund of the amount of non-construction charges fee paid under protest wrongly and illegally charged for the period 01.1.2013 to 30.06.2013.  He had paid non-construction fee till 31.12.2012 and there was no reason and occasion to raise demand for the period 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013. Despite repeated requests, OP no.1 neither provided copy of the said inspection report nor divulged about the details of the said inspection report.  The OP no.1 refused to provide a copy of the said inspection report as well as complete details of the demand of non-construction charges. It was obligatory on the part of OP no.1 to provide the same to show its transparency and fairness.  He had also made written application for refund of the amount of the demand raised for non-construction fee from OPs, but of no avail.  The complainant has been running from pillar to post, but OP no.1 gave deaf hearing in respect of refund of Rs.9600/- illegally and unlawfully charges, arbitrary without any justification. Due to above said act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to refund Rs.9600/- deposited by him for non construction charges for the period from 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 with interest @ 12% per annum, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

2.                 Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not approached this Court with clean hands and is liable to be dismissed. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as such the complaint is to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it was averred that the complainant himself defaulted by not completing the construction of the plot within stipulated time as prescribed in the allotment letter. In case the construction is not is within stipulated time, then OP no.1 is well within its right to charge non-construction charges.  The complainant himself deviated from approved site plan at the time of raising construction, as such the construction cannot be deemed to be completed unless it is approved by the competent authority due to which he has also paid the deviation fee for getting the competition certificate a such construction was not completed and complainant was liable to pay the non-construction charges. The complainant started construction of his residential house after sanction of the site plan by OP no.1 and completed the said construction on 31.12.2012. But complainant himself failed to complete the construction within stipulated time as such, as per the terms of the allotment letter, he was liable to pay the non-construction charges. The complainant had also made application dated 07.10.2015 which was duly received by OP no.1 requesting for refund of the amount of non-construction charges fees paid under protest wrongly and illegally demanded charges for the period 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 though the building was fully complete for in habitation with amenities of water connection and sewerage. The inspection conducted by ATE revealed about the illegal connection taken by the complainant due to which he has also paid the illegal connection charges later on to OP no.1. The complainant himself deviated from the approved site plan at the time of raising the construction as such the construction cannot be deemed to be completed unless it is approved by the competent authority due to which he has also paid the deviation fee for getting the completion certificate, as such construction  was not completed and he was liable to pay the non-construction charges. The non-construction charges is duly calculated by the officials of OP no.1 in the regular course of business, as per government guidelines. OP no.1 denied other averments of the complainant made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that  the complainant suppressed the material facts from this Forum.  The complainant is not consumer of OP The connection is in name of Hum Prasad with account number 3004669686 as request wa given for change of meter.  No cause of action accrued to complainant against OP. OP no.2 controverted the averments of the complainant even on merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.       The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 and closed the evidednce. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Chaudhary Executive Officer Jalandhar as Ex.OP-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP- 4 and closed the evidence. Similarly, OP no.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh Bansal Addl. S.E East Div. Jalandhar as Ex.OP-2/A and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case and also examined the written arguments filed by complainant.

6.       The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-A in support of his case.  He alleged that he applied for electric connection on 27.11.2012, vide receipt no. 594 to OP no.2. The meter was installed  on 15.01.2013, vide memo no. 50.  A spot inspection  of the construction and completion of the same was duly conducted by ATE, official of OP no.1. Report of said inspection was submitted by said official to OP no.1 and it was orally informed to him that construction of building was complete   on the date of said inspection.  He requested OP no.1 for refund of non-construction charges, which was illegally demanded by OPs from him. He had paid non-construction fee till 31.12.2012 and there was no reason and occasion to raise demand for the period 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013. Despite repeated requests, OP no.1 neither provided copy of the said inspection report nor divulged about the details of the said inspection report. OP no.1 refused to provide copy of inspection report as well as complete details of the demand of non construction charges. It was obligatory on the part of OP no.1 to provide the same to show its transparency and fairness. Ex.C-1 is copy of letter no.5410 dated 25.06.2012 addressed to  complainant by OPs. Ex.C-2 is copy of letter regarding deposit of the amount. Ex.C-3 is copy of receipt of payment. Ex.C-5 is copy of Form A. Ex.C-6 is copy of reminder regarding to get information under RTI.  Ex.C-7 is copy of document of RTI.  Ex.C-8 is copy of receipt regarding payment of Rs.9600/- issued by OPs. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are copies of Form A.  Ex.C-11 is copy of letter addressed to OPs by complainant regarding applying the electricity connection. Similarly, we have also examined other documents Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-20 placed on the record.

7.       To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Chaudhary Executive Officer Jalandhar as Ex.OP-1/A in support of case of OP no.1. Ex.OP-1 is copy of letter no.489 dated 11.05.2015 regarding completion plan of plot no. 299-A. Ex.OP-2 is copy of receipt dated 05.05.2015 regarding payment of Rs.37,520/-. Ex.OP-3 is copy of letter no.3516 dated 19.11.2015 regarding non-refund of construction fee addressed to complainant.  Ex.OP-4 is copy of letter dated 12.05.2006 regarding schedule of rates to compromise offences committed against the provisions of rules of Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922.  On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh Bansal, Addl. SE as Ex.OP-2/A in support of case of OP no.2. This witness stated that the connection is on the name of Hum Prasad as the request was given for change of name.

8.       The counsel for complainant submitted that a plot bearing no.299-A was allotted to complainant in the development scheme of 170 Acre Known as Surya Enclave, Chugtti Bypass, Jalandhar by OP no.1. He had paid the entire price of the plot to OP no.1. The complainant started construction of the residential house after sanction of the site plan by OP no.1 and completed the construction on 31.12.2012. He moved application dated 07.10.2015 which was duly received by OP no.1 for refund of the amount of non-construction charges fee paid under protest wrongly. He further alleged that OPs illegally demanded charges from 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 though the building was fully complete for inhabitation with amenities of water connection and sewerage.

9.       On the other hand, OPs submitted that all the allottee/complainant himself defaulted by not completing the construction of the plot within stipulated time as prescribed in the allotment letter.  The complainant himself deviated from the approved site plan at the time of raising the construction as such the construction cannot be deemed to be completed unless it is approved by the competent authority due to which the complainant has also paid the deviation fee for getting the completion certificate as such construction was not completed and complainant was liable to pay the non-construction charges.  The complainant started construction of the residential house after sanction of the site plan by OP no.1 and completed the said construction on 31.12.2012. He himself failed to complete the construction within stipulated time as such, as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant was liable to pay the non-construction charges.

10.     From perusal of the entire record, it is an established fact that the complainant started construction of the residential house after sanction of the site plan by OP no.1 and he alleged he had completed the said construction on 31.12.2012. But without completion certificate the construction cannot be deemed to be completed. This is bounden duty of the complainant at the time of construction, it is approved by the competent authority and get the completion certificate, but this was not done by complainant.  The spot inspection of the construction and completion of the same was duly conducted by ATE official of OP no.1. The report of the said inspection was submitted by the said official to OP no.1 in the month of December 2012 and it was informed  to the complainant that the construction of the building  was complete on the date of the said inspection. The complainant had also made application dated 07.10.2015 which was duly received by OP no.1 requesting for refund of the amount of non-construction charges fee paid under protest wrongly. This act of complainant is wrong and against the terms and conditions of the allotment. If complainant complete his construction work of the building then it is duty of the complainant to inform OP about the said construction work. The complainant alleged that he had completed the construction work on 31.12.2012 but he had not intimate OP no.1 regarding this and not get the completion certificate from OPs. The complainant moved an application dated 07.10.2015 requesting OP no.1 for refund of the amount of non-construction charges. This is bounden duty of the complainant to inform OP no.1 after completion of work, why he kept mum at least three years from date of completion of building works. The complainant deposited Rs.9600/- as non-construction charges from the period from 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013, vide copy of receipt Ex.C-8 on the record. The complainant wrote application Ex.C-12 addressed to complainant regarding completion of plot no.299/170, but this application sent to OPs on 24.04.2015 but he has not completed the construction work of his building on 31.12.2012.  The complainant himself defaulted by not completing the construction of the plot within stipulated time as prescribed in the allotment letter. In case the construction is not within time, then OP no.1 is well within its right to charge non-construction charges. The complainant himself deviated from approved the site plan at the time of raising the construction as such construction cannot be deemed to be completed unless it is approved by the competent authority due to which the complainant has also paid the deviation fee for getting the completion certificate as such construction was not completed and complainant was liable to pay the non-construction charges.

11.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand,  we do not find any force in the submissions of counsel for complainant, as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

12.     Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

13.              File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated :                            (Jyotsna)                       (Kuljit Singh)

12.01.2021                       Member                            President