ROPAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. MANMOHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 24.12.1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum), whereby the complaint was accepted and the opposite parties were directed to refund of additional non-construction fee of Rs.9,548/-.

(2.) The complainant had approached the District Forum, Ropar with the grievance that the building site plan submitted by him to the opposite parties was sanctioned on 2.4.1997. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,280/- on 9.3.1998 as penalty for non-construction. The said penalty was for the year 1998 i. e. upto 31.12.1998. However, prior to that the complainant had moved an application for extension of time limit for construction on 30.3.1998 requiring her a further deposit of the impugned amount though that deposit earned her only a meagre extension upto 20.3.1999 beyond the extended date of 31.12.1998 already allowed as per Ex. P-6 on 9.3.1998. The complainant asserted that the additional deposit was made under the compulsion of the notice dated 25.6.1998 issued by the opposite parties.

(3.) The opposite parties in their writen version admitted that the complainant purchased the plot from its original allottee - Sh. Harnam Singh and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant on 21.4.1995. It was also admitted that the complainant submitted the building site plan on 20.1.1997 and the same was sanctioned by the opposite parties vide memo No.579 dated 2.4.1997. It was stated that the complainant failed to construct the building within the prescribed period under the statutory rules. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the allottee was bound by the terms and conditions and instructions issued by the Govt. from time to time. It was also admitted that the non-construction fee was charged for completion of the construction of the booth in question upto 31.12.1997 as per instructions of the State Government. Non-construction fee for the year 1998 was due against the allottee because he had not completed the construction over the said booth-site upto 31.12.1997. A notice in this context was issued to the complainant on 27.3.1998. The complainant moved an application dated 30.3.1998 (Ex. R-9) which was received in the office of the opposite party - Trust on 31.3.1998 for getting extension for construction of booth in question as the sanctioned period of the building site plan had already expired on 2.4.1998. The opposite parties extended the period upto 20.3.1999 after the receipt of the late construction fee as per rules.