Complainant Surjit Singh  has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to recognize amount paid towards full and final payment of cost of plot and withdraw letter dated 22.07.2016 demanding Rs.3,15,220/- and issue NOC to complainant to develope the scheme No.7 fit for human habitation and till the fully development of area, penalty etc, may be waived for non-building of plot and Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental and physical harassment to him alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite parties had allotted a Plot No.74 measuring 500 Sq. Yards in Scheme No.7, New Gurdaspur Area, Gurdaspur in General Category to him. The scheme no.7 has 84.7 Acre area owned by opposite party no.1 and plot no.74 was allotted to him vide application No.27 dated 7.03.2011 for a total consideration of Rs.35,54,000/-. At the time of application, 10% of total cost of plot was paid as earnest money. The next 15% of total cost  was paid after the  allotment letter in Form D issued by the opposite parties, thus, total Rs.8,88,500/- was paid plus cess charges @ 4% of total cost of plot Rs.1,42,160/- and Rs.555 as miscellaneous charges and in this way he had paid Rs.10,31,215/- including earnest money. The allotment order was issued in Form D of Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of land and allotment of plots) Rules, 1983. The opposite parties cannot claim cess charges @ 4% on total cost from him. He has purchased plot from the opposite parties for residential purpose. The rest of 75% was ordered to be paid by him in five equal installments of Rs.5,33,100/- plus simple interest @ 12% per annum. In the copy of allotment order dated 30.08.2011 opposite parties has demanded installments alongwith  interest @ 12% P.A. vide allotment order No.1947 dated 30.08.2011, which is against rules. The Punjab Town Improvement Rules, 1983 vide Rule 7 (ii) clearly says that remaining 75% of the sale price in five six monthly equated installments with simple interest @ 10% per annum but the opposite parties issued the allotment order showing 12% interest per annum in five equal installments which is illegal and opposite parties have no right to charge excess rate of interest on installments. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties charged Rs.79,965/- interest excess than entitled for as per rules. He is not liable to pay the excess rate of interest. The installments were to start from 21.01.2012 till 21.01.2014. He paid three installments in time which include interest @ 12% P.A. but due to illness and financial crisis, last two installments were not paid in time. The opposite parties inspite of representation and legal notice, demanding penal interest, deemed restoration charges etc. illegally.  He requested the opposite parties not to burden with penalty charges and penal interest and other charges as he was bed ridden and he could not pursue his occupation. Moreover, opposite parties have no right to receive the penalty amount as their scheme is not developed for habitation till date. There are no roads, power parks etc. in the scheme. The opposite parties have not developed the scheme no.7 till date which should be done before allotment of plots to people. So, the opposite parties failed to provide the basic amenities of life and cannot demand penalty, penal interest and other charges. He has paid total amount of plot amounting to Rs.35,54,000/- and also paid interest and other charges, even the opposite parties are demanding Rs.3,15,220/- from him. In the meantime, the Punjab Govt.proclaimed scheme for payment of delayed installments alongwith interest without penal interest with composition fees. He paid Rs.12.00 lakhs in the Improvement Trust Account i.e. Rs.9.00 lakhs on 30.07.2015 and Rs.3,00 lakhs on 31.07.2015 vide two different receipts  issued by Gurdaspur Co-op Bank Ltd. Branch (Main) Gurdaspur. The payment was made in Improvement Trust Account as provided in order of Allotment but the opposite parties is not recognizing the payment made by him. The opposite parties issued a letter dated 30.03.2015 demanding amount of Rs.14,65,679/- and on 22.07.2015 it was Rs.15,35,408/- which are illegal and not binding on him, when the fact remains that till 31.07.2015, all the due amount was paid by him and there is no balance amount payable by him and the demand of Rs.3,15,220/- is illegal, null and void. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply admitting therein that plot no.74 in scheme no.7 measuring 500 sq. yards was allotted to the complainant and mode of payment was prescribed in the allotment letter. It was next submitted that the complainant failed to pay last two installments in time which attracted the penal interest and other charges and the demand of the opposite parties Rs.3,15,220/- as penalty is quite genuine and payable by the complainant. The scheme is fully developed and the complainant had made this lame excuse. The opposite parties had every right to demand the penal interest and other charges as per terms of allotment. It was further submitted that Punjab Govt. issued instructions to give one time opportunity to the defaulters to pay the remaining amount as per terms of allotment but the complainant failed to pay the required amount to the opposite parties. Payment by anybody in the account of the trust is not acceptable unless approved by the competent authorities and all charges are not paid. It was also correct that opposite parties have refused to acknowledge the payment if any deposited in the trust account which is illegal and not binding on the trust. At present a total amount of Rs.19,93,287/- stand against the complainant in the record. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.  

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Raj Kumar Clerk Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6.      We find that the present complainant has been a successful allottee since 07.03.2011 of Plot # 74 in the Scheme No. 07, New Gurdaspur Area, Gurdaspur; having since developed by the opposite party Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur (in the role of Service Provider/ State Coloniser/ Allotter of Residential Plots to General Public) and thus a statutory consumer under the applicable Act. We find that the terms as put forth in the allotment order # 1947 (Ex.C2) dated 30.08.2011 were duly accepted by the complainant vide the Sale Agreement (Ex.OP2) and presently the complainant is estopped from referring to the 10% simple interest rate as per clause 7(ii) of the Rules Manual’ 1983 (Ex.C5) after a lapse of 4½ years and that too as a collateral relief vide the present complaint. 

7.       Further, we find that the complainant has admittedly defaulted in deposit/payment of his last ‘2’ nos of instalments and as per the accepted term ‘4’ of the allotment order (Ex.C2) he is liable to pay penal interest @ 18% PA on the amount in default. The complainant own produced documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C12 somehow fail his case since the consumer courts are not inclined to interfere in the contracted terms of the accepted agreements unless these are proved to have infringed the consumer rights of the complainant. Lastly, the OP Improvement Trust has successfully proved its averred defence vide submission of documents exhibited here as: Ex.OPP2 to Ex.OPP5. The OP Trust also required that the ‘construction of building’ over the ‘plot’ was to be completed within ‘3’ years of the date of issue of the same (allotment letter) and apprehending levying of ‘penalty’ ( extension fee etc) by the OP Trust, the present complaint has been filed seeking directions to the OP not to levy/charge and rather refund penalty/fee etc till the OP Trust develops the estate in entirety and provides all the amenities necessary for human habitation besides to pay interest & penalty etc for the intervening period; alleging absence of the same.

8.       Finally, we find that in order to avoid levy of the prescribed ‘penalty’ by the OP Trust, for non-construction etc, the complainant has filed the present complaint and the same has been duly prescribed in the terms and conditions (Ex.C2) as penalty interest/fee.

9.       Moreover, we find that the complainant has sought ‘non-charging of non-construction charges’ as one of the reliefs in his complaint as pointed out in the OP’s ‘preliminary objections’. No doubt, the levying of ‘non-construction’ charges has been prayed to be restrained (and refunded, also) but for the reasons of non-availability of requisite infrastructure etc. Somehow, we find that the complainant has failed to prove his allegations as put forth in his compliant by virtue of some cogent evidence etc. In order to remove all ambiguity, we determine here that ‘extension fee’ is attracted/ liable/levied for delay in completing construction within the stipulated/ prescribed period of time i.e., for the extended time for executing/completing construction; whereas the ‘non-construction’ charges are attracted/levied for ‘non-undertaking’ of construction activity by the allot-tee within the stipulated time even at the face of availability of OP’s provided infrastructure and continuing construction activity in the adjoining residential plots/ houses etc. In the case of ‘extension fee’ it is the consumer default and thus consumer courts shall not intervene whereas in other case of ‘non-construction’ charges, the OP coloniser can also be at default by not providing ‘infrastructure’ (including non-availability of civic amenities etc) and thus the resulting disputes shall not fall within the purview of the consumer fora. The present dispute (and the resulting complaint) falls under the first category of ‘extension charges’ and thus the same shall not fall under the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the forum.

10.     We are duly supported by the legal proposition as transpired vide the OP quoted judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in RP # 2466 of 2013 titled as: PUDA & Ors vs. Dr Santosh Arora that “charging of consumer fee by PUDA does not fall within the purview of service and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to go into correctness of demands made by the OP Trust on account of extension fee”; further confirmed by the orders of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula; in FA # 1052 of 2010 titled: HUDA vs. Banarsi Dass Sharma.

11.     In the light of the all above, and finding no worthwhile statutory merit in the present complaint, we ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned parties free of charges and the file be consigned to records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President

ANNOUNCED:                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)                       

September 08,2016.                                                Member                                        

*MK*