Joginder Singh complainant through the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P. Act.) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite party namely PUDA, Amritsar through its Estate Officer not to charge penalty for the construction till the full development of area under PUDA Scheme, Gurdaspur providing all infrastructure and amenities necessary for human habitation and construction of residential houses alongwith interest @ 12% on the payment made by him to the opposite party from the last date of payment of installments till realization alongwith penalty of Rs.20,000/- for unnecessary harassment and loss of income in transportation etc in his favour, in the interest of justice.

2.       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 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 of Amritsar. The site plans are not sanctioned in one visit of 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.

3.       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 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 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.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-W1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Hardeep Singh Jr. Assistant of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OPW-1/A and of Dharampal Assistant Estate Officer, Amritsar Ex.RX, alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.

6.        We find that the present complainant had of course sought condonation of ‘non-construction charges’ as the prime relief in the instant complaint but for the valid reasons of non-availability/non-providing of the requisite (and assured) infrastructure facilities at site by the opposite party urban-colonizers (PUDA). Moreover, the OP service providers had demanded ‘non-construction’ charges of Rs.80,921/- vide their letter # 919 of 11.01.2016 and not the ‘extension-fee’ and had failed to establish that the ‘non-construction’ charges also comprise of ‘extension-fee’ etc. In the above Backdrop, the complaint was admitted under the applicable statute (for adjudication) but for the instant affidavit as produced by (the OP) on 06.11.2016 by its Asstt Estate Officer deposing therein of the availability of all promised infrastructures as per the time-scheduled and that has re-raised the maintainability issue under the C P Act’ 1986.

7.       Presently, we find that the instant dispute comprises of seriously disputed complicated questions of facts that are not resolvable/determinable under the summary procedure as prescribed to the here-applicable statute and thus attract relegation to the civil court in line with the view as expressed by the NCDRC in (2204) CPJ page 101 in RP titled: Papers Ltd., vs. NIC Ltd., & Ors.(Paragraph 7); “After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case”.

8.       Further, we find that the present dispute duly involves dispute pertaining to Settlement of Accounts that are again not preferred to be adjudicated under the instant statute under application: (paragraph ‘8’): “Moreover, the present dispute relates to ‘accounts’ which is also not entertain-able by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora. Reliance in this connection can be had on Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., vs. Himanshu S. Thumar 2005(II) CPJ page 92, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad has held that ‘account dispute’ is not a consumer dispute and the complaint should not have been entertained by the District Consumer Forum”.

9.       Thus, in the light of the all above, we are not inclined to continue with any more furtherance to the instant dispute under the applicable statute and thus without even revealing any of our limited findings we order for its relegation to the civil court of course at the choice and option of the herein complainant who shall be at liberty to take recourse to the relegated relief within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders. The interim restraining order dated 11.1.2016 passed by this Forum shall remain in force till expiry of aforesaid 30 days. The parties shall bear their own costs, here.

10.     Orders be conveyed to the titled parties free of cost as provided under the Act and thereafter the file be consigned to records.

    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                   President.

ANNOUNCED:                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)               

December 23, 2016.                                       Member.                                

*MK*