Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/794/2022

MANPREET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMAN KASHYAP, ADVOCATE

12 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/794/2022
Date of Institution	:	8/9/2022
Date of Decision	:	12/7/2024

 

Manpreet Kaur, wife of Jasdeep Singh, Resident of House No.47/13 Jagdish Marg, Near Fauzi Hospital, Shahbad Markanda (Haryana).

..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

2. Estate Officer, Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh.

 

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Akshay Rawal, Advocate for OPs.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant owned plot No.234  which was transferred to the complainant vide letter dated 17.5.1999 by the Estate Officer, Mohali. As per Para 14 of the above-mentioned Transfer letter, there was a condition imposed on the Complainant to start the construction of the factory building within six months from the allowed transfer and the construction had to be completed within one and a half years from the date of issue of this transfer letter and come into production within six months thereafter. In case the transferee/complainant could not bring the factory into production within the stipulated 2 years period, extension/non-construction fee was to be paid. When the Plot was allotted, the construction of the road and sewerage was promised by the OP No.1 in order to provide connectivity/access to the said plot and to prevent the sewerage water from flooding the plot but despite the numerous requests by the complainant, the sewerage line was improperly constructed and the proposed road was not constructed which resulted in impossible for the complainant to erect the factory building on the said plot.  When despite several requests  to the Ops nothing was done the complainant and the original allottee Dr. Kanta Jalota approached the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, which was allowed in favour of the complainant and the Op went in appeal. On 04.08.2014, a letter was received from GMADA, S.A.S. Nagar PUDA Bhawan, communicating that the sewerage line has been rebuilt and fitted. The sewerage line was rebuilt by GMADA with concrete to avoid leakage and overflow. and within only 8 months of the rectification of sewerage pipe, the Construction unit was constructed by the complainant and operations were commenced in the same on 01.05.2015. However, the Dy. General Manager of PSIEC issued show cause notice to the complainant on 29.3.2019 to cancel the allotment of plot  stating that the complainant failed to bring the plot in production within the permissible period and demanded extension fee of Rs.28,83,717/- from the complainant. cancel the allotment of the Plot stating that the Complainant had failed to bring the Plot in production within the permissible period. Through this notice, an extension fee of Rs. 28,83,717/- was demanded from the Complainant. The said notice dated 29.03.2019 has been annexed herewith as Annexure C-5. It is alleged that after 2 decades of endless harassment, litigations and complaints, the Complainant decided to transfer the Plot to Mr. Sagar Narula who deposited the requisite transfer fees and other necessary documents. With regard to this, a letter was received from Estate Officer, PSIFC dated 17.08.2020 directing that an extension fee of Rs. 21.18,650/- be deposited against the said plot from the period of 15.04.2007 to 30.04.2015 by treating the date of commencement of production as 01.05.2015. The complainant in the compelling circumstances had no choice but was forced to pay an amount of
Rs.21,18,650/-. It is alleged that by no stretch of imagination the Opposite Party No.1 can levy the extension fee from the period of 15.04.2007 to 30.04.2015 by treating the date of commencement of production as 01.05.2015 as the Hon'ble State Commission Punjab categorically in its order vide dated 08.09.2005 held that the opposite parties will not charge non-construction fee for three years from 15.4.2004 with the direction to the Opposite Party No.1 that the OP No.1 has to provide the basic amenities within this time period. However, the OP No. 1 had willfully disobeyed the order and did not repair the sewerage line or construct the proposed road which the OP No.1 ought to repair and construct. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties in their reply stated that the allotment of Plot No. 234, Phase IX, IFP Mohali was made on 11.04.1994 in the name of Mrs. Kanta Jalota. The said Plot was transferred on 17.05.1999 in the name of the complainant Manpreet Kaur. A complaint was filed by the original allottee and the present complainant before the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Punjab stating that allottee had deposited the cost of plot including extension fee, penalty etc. and PSIEC was liable to hand over the possession of lot after complete development. The Corporation contested the case and stated in its reply that all the roads were got completed at the time of development of Phase IX, Focal Point, Mohali and later on the area was handed over to Municipal Corporation (MC) and all the maintenance work of roads were to be done by MC. Similarly, the drain which was passing near the plot belongs to the Chandigarh Administration and PSIEC is not at all responsible for the said drainage. Further, there was no hinderance for the allottee to raise the construction over the plot in question which is evident from the fact that except the complainant, the construction over the adjoining plots i.e. Plot No. 228 to 240 has been completed. It is averred that the amount so charged has been rightly charged due to fault on behalf of the complainant herself. It is alleged that the complainant submitted fake proof of production to the OPs  as a result of which show cause notice was issued demanding Rs.28,83,717/- as extension fee however, later on  it was decided to charge Rs.21,18,560/- as extension fee. It is alleged that in order to cover up their negligence for not starting the construction in time the complainant had come up with excuses of approach road and drainage etc. for which they have been rightly and legally charged with extension fee to the amount of
   Rs. 21,18,650/- hence there is absolutely no fault or deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties and the present complaint is liable to be rejected.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. No rejoinder filed.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have charged extension fee of Rs.21,18,650/- illegally from the complainant, as the basic amentias  were not provided  by the OPs.
7. On perusal of the Annexure C-2 and C-3 it is observed that the complainant had already approached the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC),  Punjab and also approached the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi  in FA No.213 of 2006 against the order of SCDRC, Punjab.
8.  The issue raised in the instant complaint  before this Commission are of similar nature, which have already been agitated before the Hon’ble SCDRC, Punjab and before the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, in appeal case, therefore, we are of the view that since the issues in this complaint are of similar nature as already have been decided by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Punjab  and Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi , this Commission cannot adjudicate the matter, which has already been decided by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab and Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
12/7/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member