Petitioner/Opposite Party had  filed the present revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ‘Act’) against order dated 6.11.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh( for short, ‘State Commission’) in (First Appeal Nos. 633 and 751 of 2008).

2.     The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner allotted Plot No. 601 to the Respondent/Complainant measuring 250 Sq. yards vide transfer permission dated 08.10.1992. Respondent was also allotted 98.06 Sq. yards of additional land which adjoined the plot in question.  Petitioner vide letter dated 31.08.2006, demanded a sum of Rs.3,43,350/- on account of cost of excess area. It is further stated that it is the petitioner who failed to give the physical possession due to non-allotting of the excess area. Moreover, petitioner itself was not in a position to give the physical possession of the plot No.601 due to non-demarcation of the plot in time. In the year 2006, when respondent approached for possession, the petitioner discovered the excess area of 98.06 sq. yds. Without leaving such area, the petitioner was helpless to give the possession. Therefore, imposition of non-construction charges on the respondent, without giving physical possession is illegal, arbitrary and against the natural justice. Accordingly, consumer complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (For short, ‘District Forum’) praying that petitioner be directed to quash the demand of Rs.3,43,350/- and also to refund the sum of Rs.10,555/- and Rs.50,000/- deposited by the respondent with the petitioner. Further, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was claimed as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony. Besides this, Rs.2 lacs as compensation was also claimed due to escalation in the cost of construction.

3.  The complaint was contested by the petitioner alleging that respondent is not the original allottee of the plot but a transferee and does not come under the definition of the consumer. It is stated that demand of extension fee by the petitioner cannot be termed as deficiency in service and District Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.

4.     It was further stated that respondent is liable to pay the extension fee as she did not raise construction within three years of the allotment. It admitted that a sum of Rs.10,555/- was deposited towards building fee and Rs.50,000/- towards the price of the additional area.  The extension fee has been rightly demanded from the respondent and same cannot be challenged through this complaint.

5.     After hearing the parties and perusing the record, District Forum vide order dated 25.4.2008, partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner;

“ To charge the non-construction charges as per Rule 13 of 1995 Rules as discussed above and to (illegible) the excess amount if any on this account, to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit till refund.”

6.     Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, both parties filed separate appeals before the State Commission.

7.     Respondent in her appeal (First Appeal No.751 of 2008) had prayed for quashing the demand of Rs.3,43,350/-. Whereas, petitioner filed (First Appeal No.633 of 2008) for setting aside the order of the District Forum and for dismissal of the complaint.

8.     State Commission vide common impugned order, dismissed both the appeals.

9.     Hence, the present revision petition.

10.   We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.

11.   It is the case of petitioner that respondent is not a consumer, as she is not the original allottee but a transferee only. She has merely stepped into shoes of the original allottee and as such is liable to comply with the conditions. It has also been submitted that the demand of extension fee by the petitioner was as a result of uniform unchallenged norms and by no means there is any deficiency in service as defined under the Act. Further, respondent has no legal right to avoid the legitimate consequence of her default in complying with the terms of allotment as stated in the allotment letter, vide which the construction on the plot should have been raised within three years from the date of allotment of the plot.

12.     It is further submitted by the learned counsel, that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of “composition fee” and “extension fee” by a public housing authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HUDA Vs. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479. Further, decision of Sunita (supra) has been reaffirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8314-8315 PUDA (Now GLADA) Vs. Narinder Singh Nanda, decided on February 20,2014.

13.   District Forum, in its order dated 25.4.2008 held;

           “It is admitted fact that the plot area has since been increased from 250 Sq. yds. to 348 Sq. yds. As per Ex. R19 and R20. The complainant vide letter Ex R6 and R.7 approached the respondent-PUDA to intimate the area and its cost in order to deposit with the department. Opposite Party-PUDA vide letter Ex. C.8 has raised the demand of Rs.3,44,350/- concerning non-construction fee and cost on account of increase of plot area but neither  the complainant nor the respondent has placed the original allotment letter from where the original rate of plot can be determined nor any details have been given in this regard in Ex. C.8. In the complaint, the complainant had admitted that Rs.50,000/- have been deposited with the opposite party vide receipt dated 6.2.2006 as cost of additional area of the plot which stand admitted in para no.3 of the written statement by the Opposite Party-PUDA but nowhere the original rate of the plot area as per allotment letter or rate cost of additional area which has been raised to the complainant has been mentioned. So under these circumstances we are unable to adjudicate this issue in the absence of facts/evidence on record.

                    In view of our above discussion this complaint partly accepted and the Opposite Party-PUDA is directed to charge the non-construction charges as per Rule 13 of 1995 Rules as discussed above and to (illegible) the excess amount if any on this account, to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit till refund.”

14.   The State Commission, while dismissing both appeals observed;

          “8.   The next aspect of the case is about the additional area of 98.06 Sq. yards. The complainant wrote a letter Ex.R-6 requesting the OP for allotment of the adjoining land to her. She again moved an applicationEx.R-7 on 17.05.1996 requesting for taking measurement of extended area on the backside of plot and tell her the cost which she was required to deposit therefore. The OP vide letter Ex.R-8 dated 12.05.1996 informed her to deposit the amount of Rs.19,738/- and that only thereafter, the case for allotment of the adjoining land would be started. The said amount was paid by the complainant and again she wrote a letter Ex.R-13 to allot the said land. The OP took measurement and worked out the area as 98.06 Sq. Yards as per their reports Ex.R-19 and R-20 dated 02.08.2006. We are therefore, of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to a period of three years as extension for raising construction over the additional land calculated from the date on which the said area was allotted to her. The OPs cannot recover the extension fee on the adjoining area of 98.06 Sq. yards from the date when plot no.601 was allotted.”

It further observed;

        12.    The learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 25.04.2008 directed the OP to charge non construction charges as per Rule 13 of 1995 Rules and refund the excess amount if any to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till its refund. The impugned order is perfectly in conformity with the orders passed in this respect by the Hon’ble National Commission which have stood the test before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India when challenged by the appellant. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid, there is no merit in any of the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.”

15.    Respondent in Para No. 6 of her complaint has averred, that it is the petitioner who failed to give the physical possession of the plot, hence imposition of non-construction charges on her without giving physical possession is illegal and arbitrary. In response to these averments, petitioner nowhere denied that it failed to give the physical possession. There is nothing on record to show as to on which date, the physical possession of the plot in question was given by the petitioner to the respondent. Petitioner in its written statement, has nowhere mentioned the date on which it gave the physical possession of the plot to the respondent.

16.   We fail to understand as to how the petitioner could demand the extension/non-construction fee from the respondent when petitioner itself has not given the possession of the plot to the respondent. Though, as per allotment letter, the respondent had to complete the construction works within three years from date of allotment letter, but the same nowhere states as to by which period, the petitioner was to hand over the possession of the plot to the respondent. Under these circumstances, demand of extension fee/non-construction fee for the period when the respondent was not in possession of the plot in question at all, is per se illegal.

17.   An allottee can make construction over the plot allotted to her only after she gets the possession. If after getting the possession of the allotted plot, the allottee fails to raise the construction within the prescribed period, then only extension fee/non-construction fee can be levied. In the present case, petitioner is itself at fault, since plot was allotted by way of transfer to the respondent in the year 1992, but there is nothing on record to show as to  when the physical possession of the plot was handed over to the respondent. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, is writ large in this case.

18.   Decision of Sunita and Narinder Singh Nanda (Supra) as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case at all.

19.   Therefore, in view of the concurrent findings of facts given by both the Fora below, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, present revision petition stand dismissed.

20.   No order as to cost.