IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BARNALA Vs. NARENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of ours will dispose of two appeal Nos. 51 and 52 of 2005. For the sake of reference, facts are taken from Appeal No. 51 of 2005.

(2.) THIS is an appeal by the Improvement Trust against the order dated 29.11.2004 of District Consumer Forum, Sangrur by which the complaint filed by the opposite side i.e. Dr. Nainder Kumar was allowed by which it was ordered that a sum of Rs. 40.740 which was recovered from the complainant on account of non -construction fee for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.1.2004 should be refunded with 10% interest from the date of deposit till refund along with litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000.

(3.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that a plot was allotted to the complainant on 25.11.1997 and he was liable to pay extension/non -construction fee as per the agreement for sale dated 28.7.2000 which was executed between the parties i.e. the complainant and the Improvement Trust. The case of the complainant was that since the Improvement Trust had failed to provide the basic amenities at the spot like roads, electricity, water supply and sewerage, the construction could not be undertaken inasmuch as if the construction was made, the same would have been useless and futile as it could not be put to reasonable use in the absence of basic amenities. It was not disputed before the District Forum that the amenities of water supply and sewerage were provided only in December, 2001. The District Forum was of the view that it was not reasonably practical to construct the house unless the basic amenities were provided and the period for construction which was three years from the date of allotment could not be reckoned from the date of allotment rather the starting point should be reckoned from the date when basic amenities were provided. Admittedly, in the present case the basic amenities, like water supply and sewerage were provided in the year 2001 and according to us the learned District Forum was correct in holding that the starting point for reckoning the period of construction would be the year 2001 and in these circumstances the non -construction fee for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.1.2004 was uncalled for and liable to be quashed.