JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.7.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only),vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP (now appellant) to issue the completion/occupation certificate, to the complainant, (now respondent) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, without demanding any extension fee, from him, failing which, it would be liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, to the complainant 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the appeal, are that on 6.1.2006, the complainant purchased a booth site No.23, Industrial Area, Phase 7, SAS Nagar, Mohali from the OP, in auction. As per clause 11 of the allotment letter, the complainant completed the construction of the booth within the stipulated period of three years. He submitted an application dated 2.1.2009, for the issuance of the completion certificate, and letter dated 21.1.2009 for issuance of ‘no due certificate’. Instead of supplying these documents, the OP vide letter dated 2.2.2009 demanded an amount of Rs.58,000/-, from the complainant, towards extension fee, though, he(complainant) had never applied for extension and rather completed the construction within the stipulated period. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only) was filed by the complainant. 3. In reply, the OP admitted the factual matrix. It was also admitted that the letter dated 2.1.2009 was written by the complainant, to the OP, intimating the completion of construction, but he did not submit the supporting documents alongwith the same. It was further stated that, on account of this reason, no action could be taken, on the basis of letter dated 2.1.2009, referred to above. It was further stated that on receipt of the letter dated 22.1.2009 from the complainant, for grant of ‘no due certificate’, he was advised vide letter dated 2.2.2009 to remit the extension fee amounting to Rs.58,000/-. It was further stated that the complainant failed to submit the documentary evidence, i.e. electricity bill/receipt of connection issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board for having completed the building on or before 5.1.2009. It was further stated that a recommendation was made to give completion certificate w.e.f. 25.6.2009 i.e. from the date of visiting the site by the members of the constituted committee and this fact was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 30.7.2009. It was further stated that vide this letter the complainant was also directed to deposit the extension fee of Rs.58,000/. It was further stated that, since he failed to deposit the aforesaid amount, the completion certificate was not issued. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, by way of affidavits, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Opposite party/Appellant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case ,carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, since the respondent/complainant neither submitted the relevant documents, that he had completed the construction, within a period of three years, from the date of allotment of booth site, as per Clause-11 of the Allotment Letter Annexure C-1, nor did he deposit the extension fee of Rs.58,000/- as demanded from him, therefore, completion/occupation certificate and ‘No Due Certificate’ could not be issued to him. He further submitted that the OP, being a very big organization, having its office at Chandigarh, could not be expected to send its official to inspect the site, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion, as to whether, the construction had been completed or not, especially when letter dated 2.1.2009 was submitted by him(complainant) only two days before the expiry of three years, as mentioned in Clause-11 of the aforesaid letter. He further submitted that even the complainant did not supply the electricity bill, or the document relating to the installation of electric connection, in the said booth. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the fault did not lie with the appellant, but, on the other hand, with the complainant/respondent. He further submitted that the OP/appellant was not deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant/respondent. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that it was for the concerned official of the appellant, to visit the spot, and after inspection, to find out, as to whether, the construction of the booth had been completed as per Clause-11 of Annexure C-1, Letter of Allotment. He further submitted that the complainant informed the OP/appellant well before the expiry of a period of three years of the allotment of booth site, that he had completed the construction. He further submitted that even the relevant documents were also, later on, submitted by the complainant, but on account of fault of the OP/appellant, the completion/occupation certificate could not be issued. He further submitted that there was no question of payment of extension fee of Rs.58,000/-, demanded from the complainant, by the appellant, as he never applied for extension of time for completing the construction. He further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, right in holding, that the appellant was deficient, in rendering service. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Annexure C-1 is the letter dated 6.1.06 , written by the appellant, to the complainant, allotting the site, for construction of a booth. The schedule of payment of installments, as also the other terms and conditions, are mentioned therein. According to Clause-11 of the said letter, the building was to be completed by the complainant, within three years, from the date of allotment of site. He was required to produce the completion/occupation certificate, duly issued by the competent authority, as proof of having completed the construction within the stipulated period. Undisputedly, the complainant intimated the OP vide Annexure C-2 letter dated 2.1.2009 that he had completed the building, as per the sanctioned building plan, and completion certificate, to that effect, be issued. He also sent reminder Annexure C-3 on 22.1.2009. In response thereto, the OP demanded Rs.58,000/- towards extension fee vide Annexure C-4. It was, on 12.5.2009, vide Annexure C-5 that the OP demanded the forwarding letter, affidavit, certificate of architect and photos of built up booth, which were furnished by the complainant on 25.5.2009. Thereafter, a committee was appointed to inspect the booth. The Booth was inspected on 29.5.2009 and report R-1 was submitted, which was referred to the Estate Wing. The said Estate Wing submitted the Site Report R-2, stating that the construction was completed, as per the sanctioned building plan, and the complainant was entitled to the issuance of the completion certificate. However, the OP again demanded a sum of Rs.58,000/-. Once, an intimation was given by the complainant, vide letter Annexure C-2, to the OP, that he had completed the building, then it was its duty to send its responsible officer/official to inspect the same, to find out, as to whether, the same had been constructed, in accordance with the plan, which was sanctioned by it. Even, during the course of arguments, a letter was produced by the Counsel for the respondent, containing the information, obtained by him under the RTI Act. It is evident from Annexure CX attached with the letter, that no committee for inspection of the site, was in existence as on 2.1.2009, and for the first time, it was constituted on 24.5.2009. There is nothing in C-1, as to which were the documents which were required to be submitted by the complainant, to the OP, for the purpose of obtaining the completion certificate. The complainant never applied for extension of time, for the completion of construction of booth, and, as such, the extension fee in the sum of Rs.58,000/- which was demanded by the OP, could be said to be unjustified and illegal. If the responsible officier/official of the OP, did not inspect the constructed booth of the complainant, when he intimated it, regarding the completion thereof, then, there was certainly deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Had the complainant not completed the construction within a period of three years, from the date of allotment of booth site, as per Clause-11 of C-1, the matter would have been different. In that event, certainly the extension fee could be demanded by the OP, from the complainant. The mere fact that the OP is a big Organization, and it cannot act immediately, on the basis of a request made by the complainant, that he be issued ‘No Due Certificate’/completion certificate as he had completed the construction , does not mean that the complainant could be held responsible for making payment of Rs.58,000/- , for no fault of his, and on account of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP. The office of the appellant is at Chandigarh, whereas, the booth site was allotted at Mohali. Mohali is not at a far off distance from Chandigarh. The OP/appellant intentionally slept over the matter. On the other hand, for its gross negligence, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.58,000/- as extension fee, which, demand was completely arbitrary, irrational and illegal. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, by not issuing the completion/occupation certificate, to the complainant, who had completed the construction, within a period of three years, from the date of allotment of site , as per Clause-11 of C-1. 11. The order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The same deserves to be upheld. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. These costs are, in addition to the litigation expenses, already awarded by the District Forum. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
