The instant Complaint # 568/2017 was first filed on 07.01.2016 with the original allotted index number of 30/2016 by the complainant against the opposite party state colony developers seeking its relief(s) i) No penalty-charges for non-construction till the instant colony gets fully developed under the PUDA scheme providing all infrastructure/ amenities necessary for human habitation and construction of residential houses; ii) payment of interest @ 12% PA on the payments made by the complainant to PUDA from the date of payment till realization and iii) Payment of Rs 20,000/- as penalty for causing unnecessary harassment and loss etc. However, the opposite party authority had contested/ rebutted the contents of the complaint with its claims of having provided reasonable infrastructure for having initiating the necessary construction work, at least.

2.              Somehow, the consumer forum had relegated the then Complaint # 30/2016 on 23.12.2016 to the civil court of the competent jurisdiction thus affording liberty to the litigants to take recourse to a legal relief of their own choice with its interim orders dated 11.01.2016 to stay in force for a further period of 30 days; And, the complainant having fallen aggrieved at the above orders preferred the First Appeal # 206/2017 with the honorable Punjab State Commission, at Chandigarh; who were pleased to set-aside the forum’s orders (vide paragraph ‘7’ of its appellate orders of 23.08.2017) and remanding the case back to the forum for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.

3.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the Plot No.191 measuring 209.11 Sq.mts in PUDA Avenue, Old Jail Site, Gurdaspur under OUVGL Scheme was allotted to him for residential purpose and as such he is consumer of the opposite party. He has paid full and final payment on 17.02.2012 and No due certificate was issued to him by the opposite party. The plot was allotted to him vide allotment letter no.5091 dated 19.12.2011 and he has paid all the installments through Bank draft from PNB Dhariwal, Gurdaspur Banks. He has further pleaded that the opposite party has allotted the plot saying that area will be developed before completion of installments of plots and has received 25% per price of the plot. Opposite party has not developed the area under the scheme within time. The opposite party has not provided any mettaled road, water supply, lights, sewerage, parks etc. in PUDA scheme. They failed to provide basic amenities of life till date. The supply of water is necessary for construction of residential area. There has not been provided boundary wall. The opposite party objects to get water through Submersible pumps. There are no electricity and street lights provided in the area. He has further pleaded that the opposite party has taken full price of plot. The money paid by him is lying interest less in the hands of the opposite party.  The office of the opposite party has not officially delivered the possession of plot to him. The office of the opposite party is at Amritsar which is 70 kilometers away from Gurdaspur. He and other persons have to visit Amritsar for petty works. Even the bank drafts sent by him by post, has not been acknowledged properly. One visit of Amritsar costs Rs.500/- per visit beside wastage of time and energy etc. The opposite party has not provided any local office for submission of site plans, bank drafts, payment and deposit of development and other charges. The site plans are not sanctioned in one visit at Amritsar. The complainant and other persons have to visit number of times for sanctioning of site plan and other works. So non-development of area disentitles the opposite party to charge development and betterment charges, for delayed construction. The opposite party is also not entitled for any penalty for late construction of residences due to non-development of area under PUDA scheme, which will be fit for human habitation and enjoyment of life. The opposite party failed to provide basic services and is deficient in providing the services, necessary for development of residential area. In this way, the opposite party is deficient in providing services. Hence this complaint.

4.       Upon notice the opposite party appeared and filed the written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint pleadings and prayer as well as relief claimed from the present form is “Not to charge for the construction till the full development of area”, is not maintainable  being without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. On merits, it was admitted that the plot No.191,Old Jail Gurdaspur PUDA Colony has been allotted, vide allotment, terms and conditions of allotment letter has insured and due payment might have been paid subject to proof, thus denied and not admitted to that extent. It was further denied that the colony has not developed with prescribed time as alleged and amenities have not provided as alleged. It was also denied that electrification of street and its light has not been provided by the opposite parties. 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 of the plot in question as alleged. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.        We observe that both the litigating sides have produced their respective documents to adduce their respective evidence to support/prove their respective allegations, averments and rebuttals etc. The complainant has produced his deposition affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with evidentiary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 to somewhat satisfactorily prove his case as complained, hereinabove to close his evidence. On the other hand, the OP authority did tender (in evidence) its two affidavits exhibited as Ex.OPW1/A & Ex.RX along with documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the arbitrarily levying of non-construction penalty by the OP PUDA authority upon the complainant without having the colony first provided with the requisite infrastructural facilities. We are certainly not convinced with this callous plea as made out by the OP authority the face of its ‘bald-statements’ of having provided all the needed amenities at site. The OP authority must understand that the consumers do purchase the houses for construction and living only and the developers must stand by them at the time of such-like adverse situations. We further find that the OP Trust has failed to prove that the requisite infrastructure facilities had been available/provided for at the site as on the date of handing over/transfer of the plot to the complainant and in the absence of the same they are not entitled to impose any ‘penalty’ on the grounds of non-construction etc. The above proposition finds its legal support vides the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “ Punjab Urban Planning  and Development Authority versus Shivbir Singh” reported in 2015(4) RCR civil 240 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held “that Allottees were given possession of plot, but without providing basic amenities with the result that allottees could not start construction-This is deficiency in service.”

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP PUDA authority to provide all the requisite and also the promised infrastructure facilities at the site to its optimally best level within a period of ‘three’ months and also not to charge any penalty/penal interest on account of ‘non-construction’ for no fault of complainant besides to pay him Rs 10,000/- as cost and compensation (for having inflicted harassment etc) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded  amount shall carry an additional interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment. 

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

                                                              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                   President.

ANNOUNCED:                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)               

February 23, 2018.                                                 Member.                                

*MK*