1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 28.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 256 of 2018 in which order dated 23.12.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 30 of 2016 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the State Commission, Punjab.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/256/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC no. 30 of 2016.   Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 09.04.2019.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 30.11.2022 (Petitioner) and 02.03.2020 (Respondents) respectively.  For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that the complainant acquired Plot No. 191, measuring 209.11 square meters, within PUDA Avenue, Old Jail Site, Gurdaspur, under the OUVGL (Optimum Utilization of vacant government lands) Scheme for residential purposes. The complainant completed the payment of Rs. 26,34,786/- on 17.02.2012, and subsequently, the OP issued a No Due certificate. The plot was allotted through allotment no. 5091 on 19.12.2011, with an assurance that the area would be developed before the instalment’s completion. However, the OP failed to meet this commitment within the stipulated timeline, which included the provision of vital amenities like water, electricity, sewerage, and metallic roads, mandated by the PUDA Scheme. The funds deposited by the complainant remained with the OP without accruing any interest. The complainant never obtained official possession of the plot. Additionally, the site plan was not sanctioned during a single visit. Consequently, the complainant contends that the OP has no valid reason to impose a penalty for construction delays due to the area's non-development. This highlights a deficiency in services, prompting the complainant to initiate a legal complaint before the District Forum, Gurdaspur. The forum initially issued a restraining order on 11.01.16, effective for a 30-day period. Subsequently, in an order dated 23.12.2016, the forum recommended transferring the case to the Civil Court, granting the complainant the discretion to do so, owing to the jurisdictional constraints of Consumer Forum. The case was subsequently elevated to the State Commission in Chandigarh, which, upon review, remanded the case back to District Forum, affirming its jurisdiction over the matter.

4.       Vide Order dated 11.01.2016 an interim restraining order was passed by District Forum Gurdaspur. By an Order dated 23.12.2016 in the CC no. 30 of 2016, the District Forum, directed the transfer of the case to the Civil court, granting the Complainant the choice and option to do so. Subsequently, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission, Punjab, which, through an Order dated 23.08.2017 in FA No. 206 of 2017, remanded the complaint back to the District Forum. Further, through an Order dated 23.02.2018 in the CC no. 568 of 2017, the District Forum directed the OP to furnish the necessary infrastructure within a span of 3 months and abstain from imposing any penalty due to non-construction. Additionally, the OP was instructed to compensate the Complainant with Rs.10,000 as both a cost and compensation for the endured harassment.

5.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated 23.02.2018 of District Forum, OP appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 28.05.2018 in FA No. 256 of 2018 has dismissed the Appeal.

6.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 28.05.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) The status of an auction purchaser, distinctly places them outside the purview of a 'Consumer' as defined by the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums to adjudicate or entertain such complaints is inherently lacking. It is incumbent upon the Hon'ble State Commission to recognize that the Learned District Forum erroneously assumed jurisdiction in entertaining the complainant's plea in this matter.

(ii) The State Commission should have duly acknowledged the fact that the complainant, in this instance, bears the designation of a defaulter due to their failure in adhering to the prescribed obligations, including the timely application for demarcation and site plan approval within the stipulated three-year timeframe. The filing of a spurious and ill-defined Consumer complaint by the complainant appears to be driven by a mala fide intention, aimed at evading the obligation of non-construction fees without the requisite supporting documentation.

(iii) The mandate for completion of construction within a designated three-year span subsequent to the valid sanctioning of building plans was disregarded by the complainant. Notably, the complainant neglected to submit the necessary building plans for official approval. This omission underscores the likelihood that the plot acquisition was primarily undertaken for speculative purposes rather than genuine residential requisites.

(iv) A crucial element to consider is the indispensable requirement of a deficiency in service for the imposition of any liability under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. It is evident that no such deficiency in service can be attributed to the actions or conduct of the OP. Consequently, the Consumer Fora are precluded from unjustly burdening the Petitioner with unwarranted liability to provide compensation to the Respondent.

7.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

1.  The Complainant's counsel argues that given the thorough examination of the facts in both the District and State Commissions, each having the requisite jurisdiction, and the favorable decisions rendered in favor of the complainant, there is no exigency to delve into the facts extensively once again. Moreover, it is emphasized that no unresolved questions of law persist, as the preceding judgments do not exhibit any legal irregularities. Furthermore, the OP failed to provide the essential amenities necessary for the plot's development. The absence of credible documentary evidence to substantiate these provisions further underscores the deficiency in service. Additionally, PUDA is not burdened by any financial obligations, as it has already received the full payment from the complainant and even issued a No Due Certificate. Consequently, there is no outstanding amount due from the complainant, and any endeavor by PUDA to impose an undue financial encumbrance on the complainant is unwarranted.

2. The OP's counsel contends that an auction purchaser falls outside the ambit of a 'Consumer' as per the definitions laid out in the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the Consumer Forums lack jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon such complaints. In this regard, it is asserted that both the District and State Commissions have committed a jurisdictional error, warranting a request for the overturning of the judgments issued by these respective fora.

8.       The instant RP has been filed by the Petitioner, named as “Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority” as per RP, but named as “Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, now Amritsar Development Authority”, giving an impression as if the Amritsar Development Authority (ADA) is the successor authority of Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA) or ADA is the changed name of PUDA, and PUDA no more exists now, which perhaps is not the case. While PUDA is a State Level statutory Authority, ADA is having local jurisdiction in Amritsar District of the State.  During the oral hearing, the counsel stated that perhaps ADA, though an independent body, is a subsidiary body of PUDA, but was not sure about the exact relationship between PUDA and ADA, both of which still exist simultaneously.

9.       The counsel was also not able to bring out clearly the differences between ‘Extension Fee’ and ‘Non Construction Fee’, whether both are same or different concepts.  District Forum has ordered that OP (Petitioner herein) not to charge any penalty/penal interest on account on ‘non-construction’.  State Commission order, referring to complaint also makes a mention that “…… The OP is also not entitled to any penalty for late construction of residences due to non-development of area under PUDA Scheme…..”.  Before the State Commission, the OP averred that “complainant failed to get the site plan approved and deliberately delayed the matter.  He also failed to get the demarcation of plot and defaulted in getting all the formalities approved within the prescribed time and hence he is liable for non-construction……”.

10.     State Commission in its order has observed that “Admittedly, the certificates (completion certificates) have been issued by the concerned authorities, Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-6, but the same have not been supported by any documentary evidence i.e. measurement book etc. that the project is complete in all respects……. Mere certificates, Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-6 are not sufficient.  The same must be supported by cogent and convincing evidence, which is missing in the present case.”

11.     We have gone through the terms of auction for property sold under OUVGL Scheme, which are common to residential/commercial and chunk sites. As per para 11 of these terms, ‘the possession of site will be given within 90 (ninety) days from the date of issue of allotment letter, in case the allottee fails to take the possession of site within this stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on the due date”.  Para 22 states “The site is offered on ‘as is where is’ basis and authority will not be responsible for leveling the site or removing the site or removing the structures, if any, thereon.  (During the hearing it was fairly admitted by the counsel for Petitioner that this para is in context of plot area of the allottee and not in the context of overall development works in the project area).  Further para 23 states as follows:-

“23.        The allottee will have to construct a dwelling unit in case of a residential plot and one storey in case of an SCO/SCF within 3 years from the date of possession. The period can be extended by the Estate Officer in the manner and on payment of such fee as fixed by the Authority. However in case of sites sold on chunk basis, there will be no time limit for construction of building.”

12.     It is the above stated condition which is the bone of contention between the parties as the allottee (Respondent herein) failed to do the construction within the prescribed period of 3 years from the date of possession, for which the Petitioner herein demands ‘non-construction’/‘Extention’ fee.  During the hearing the counsel for Petitioner conceded that both the terms ‘non construction fee’ and ‘extention fee’ are one and same, and refers to the fee chargeable by Petitioner/PUDA under Para 23 cited for granting extention of the period for construction beyond three years. It was contended by the Respondent/complainant that delay in construction by him is on account of non-provision of various amenities/non-completion of  various development works relating to common facilities in the project area like water, electricity, sewage, -metalled roads etc.  It was also contended by Respondent that he never obtained the official possession of the plot.  OP/Petitioner herein has no valid reason for imposing penalty for construction delay due to area’s non-development, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Allotment letter dated 19.12.2011 also contains various clauses relating to possession & ownership, construction of buildings and Extention Fee etc., some of which are reproduced below.

“ 4. POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP

i)       The allomee shall be required to take possession of the plot within 60 days of the of allotment letter provided 25% of the tentative price has been paid.  If possession is not taken by the allorce within stipulated period, it shall be deemed to have been handed over on the expiry of said period.

x x x x

5. CONSTRUCTON OF BUILDING

i)       Construction on plot shall be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter, after getting the building plans duly sanctioned from the Estate Officer, PUDA, Amritsar.

x x x x  

EXTENSION FEE

i)       If the construction on the plot is not completed within the time stipulated in para 5 above, extension in construction period would be granted subject to payment of Extension fee, as may be determined from time to time. However extension in period of completion of building shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Estate Officer that the failure to complete the building within the stipulated period was due to a cause beyond the control of allottee.

ii)      In case of non-payment or delayed payment of extension fee, in addition penalty at the following rates shall also be charged:-

a) If the delay is up to one year period        = Normal applicable rate of Interest +3%  PA for the delayed  

b) If the delay is up to two

year period                                      =  Normal applicable rate of    

                                                Interest+4%                                     PA for the delayed

c)If the delay is up to three

year period or more                      = Normal applicable rate of Interest    

        +5% PA for the delayed

7. GENERAL

i) This allotment shall be governed by the provision of Punjab Regional

and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, Rules & regulations

framed there under as amended from time to time.

x x x x”

13.     In this case, No Due Certificate dated 17.02.2012 is on record, which states that full tentative price of Rs.26,34,786/- has been received by the Petitioner.  However, a letter dated 11.01.2016 was issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent stating that “No Due Certificate of Plot No. 191, old jail site, Gurdaspur, have already been issued to you vide this office letter No. 1314 dated 17.02.2012.  Non-construction fee Rs.80,921/- is due upto dated 30.06.2016………”.  In its reply to the complaint before the District Forum, OP/Petitioner herein stated that “It is specifically stated that complainant failed to get the site plan approved and deliberately delayed the matter rather failed to get the demarcation of the plot and default in getting all the formalities approved in the prescribed time and liable for non-construction. ……….  The complainant is on regular default for depositing and praying for extension and failed to get the construction within prescribed time…….”

14.     We have perused the acknowledgment slip issued by ADA (Petitioner herein) as per which application for issue of completion certificate/occupation certificate was received on 30.06.2016.  As per notice of completion and permission to occupy submitted by Respondent to the Petitioner, the building was sanctioned vide order dated 08.02.2016 of Petitioner, and building has been completed on 28.06.2016.  Vide letter dated 26.07.2017, Petitioner informed the Respondent that as per report of their office, the said building is incomplete, and only structure is present at the moment, and completion certificate cannot be issued at this stage and according to report of the accounts branch a balance of non-construction charges of Rs.1,07,269/- is due. The Respondent filed consumer complaint on 07.01.2016 before District Forum praying for issuance of necessary directions to the OP not to charge penalty for the construction till the full development of area under PUDA scheme, providing all infrastructure and amenities necessary for human habitation. 

15.     During the course of pendency of RP, the Petitioner, with permission, filed certain additional documents, which included online status of some of the applicants who have raised construction at the site in question, copy of application for issuance of completion certificate filed by some applicants and copy of receipts issued by Divisional Engineers PUDA regarding completion of development works.  Perusal of two of these documents show that Petitioner has approved the building plans of some of the allotted in August 2013 and March 2014, and they gave notice of completion and permission to occupy in July 2014 and November 2015, and Petitioner issued the requisite permission in November 2014 & April 2016 respectively.  However, it is noted that in both these cases, the permission issued states that it is for ‘one dwelling unit which is partially constructed/completed”.  Possibly, it is not essential for the allottee to construct & complete 100% of the unit as per building plan and such permission for occupation certificate or use of building is granted even if the construction is completed upto a certain percentage and thereafter the condition of levy of construction fee cease.

16.     Hence, on going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that in terms & conditions of auction as well as in terms and conditions of allotment letter, the allottee is obligated to complete the construction within a period of 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter, after getting the building plans duly sanctioned from the Petitioner and in case construction on the plot is not completed within the stipulated time, extension in construction period would be granted by Petitioner, subject to payment of ‘Extention Fee’ by the Respondent.  Hence, in the instant case, Respondent is  liable to pay the Extention Fee for delay in completing the construction of his unit (upto the permissible percentage as per PUDA/ADA Rules) beyond the stipulated time.  Keeping in view the reports of officers of PUDA/ADA, we find that Petitioner has undertaken a reasonable level of development in the project area, though it may not be complete in all respects.  But this cannot be taken as reason by the Respondent in not completing the construction of his unit within the prescribed time, especially when many other allottees of the same project area, have got their building plans sanctioned and got the permission to occupy.  Hence, the orders of State Commission and District Forum will not stand in its present form and would need modifications. In this case, the allotment letter is dated 19.12.2011, the 3 year period to construct ends on 19.12.2014.  The Respondent made application for issuance of completion/occupation certificate on 30.06.2016.  Hence, he is liable to pay Extension Fee for the period 19.12.2014 to 30.06.2016 at the prescribed rates prevalent as on 30.06.2016.  However, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including pendency of the case before consumer for a, the Petitioner (PUDA/ADA) shall not charge any penalty or interest on the due amount of Extension Fee.  Petitioner shall, within one month, issue fresh demand letter stating the exact amount of Extension Fee payable, keeping in view this order.  Thereafter, Respondent shall have two months’ time from the date of receipt of such demand letter to pay such amount. Hence, order of State Commission & District Forum are modified in terms of above observations.

17.     Accordingly, the RP is partially allowed and disposed off with following details:-

(i)      Petitioner is entitled to and Respondent is obligated to pay extension fee for delay in construction in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

(ii)     Petitioner shall charge extension fee only for the period 19.12.2014 to 30.06.2016 at the prescribed rates prevalent at that time, without any penalty or interest on account of delayed payment. 

(iii)    Petitioner shall, within one month of this order, issue fresh demand letter specifying the exact amount of extension fee payable as per above orders.  Respondent shall have two months’ time from the date of receipt of demand letter to pay such extension fee. 

(iv)    On receipt of the requisite extension fee, Petitioner shall, within one month, issue the final No Dues Certificate (NDC), complete other required formalities, including execution of the requisite conveyance deed/registration of the property.

18.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.