BIMLA VATI Vs. MPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bimla Vati has filed the present First Appeal against the Order dtd. 11/4/2019 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by Bimla Vati (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was dismissed in limine finding no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Improvement Trust, (hereinafter referred to as the OP Trust) having no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the Complaint and the Complaint being barred by time, with costs of 5,000/- to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account..

(2.) Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant, a retired Government Teacher, was allotted a Plot No. 444, admeasuring 239.11 sq. yards in Scheme No. 2, Rajiv Gandhi Avenue, Hoshiarpur floated by Opposite Party Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party Improvement Trust" ) under Punjab Government Pensioners' quota for a total sale consideration of 11,04,689/- + 4% cess vide allotment letter dtd. 22/9/2010. The Scheme was extension of already existing scheme, which was framed way back from June, 1996 to 2001. The Complainant made total payment of 13,03,736/- as per demand of the Opposite Party Improvement Trust. As per Clause 7 of the Allotment letter the development work was to be completed within 2 1/2 years and possession of the plot can be taken after execution of the sale agreement with the Opposite Party Improvement Trust. As per Clause 11 of the allotment letter construction on the Plot was to be completed within 3 years from the date of allotment. Even though as per Clause 7 of the allotment letter Opposite Party Improvement Trust was bound to complete the development work within 2 1/2 years yet they failed to complete the development work till the date of filing of the Complaint. It is averred that offer of possession without completing the development work, is not a valid offer of possession. In other words, Complainant cannot raise construction without having a valid possession in absence of completion of development work. Despite the fact that the Opposite Party Improvement Trust failed to complete the development work, they started charging non-construction charges after three years from the date of allotment letter. The Complainant protested against the imposing of non-construction charges vide letters dtd. 25/9/2015 and 22/11/2015, but in vain. It is averred that in reply to the information sought under RTI Act, the Opposite Party Improvement Trust vide letter dtd. 16/8/2016 informed that some development work was pending in the Scheme, which shows that even by that time the Development work was not completed and Opposite Party Improvement Trust was not entitled to demand non-construction charges. Despite that Opposite Party Improvement Trust continued imposing penalty for non-construction. Vide letter dtd. 13/7/2016 the Opposite Party Improvement Trust asked the Complainant to avail 50% discount on non-construction fee and pay 68,640/- otherwise warned of action against her. Complainant deposited a sum of 72,452/- on 19/9/2016 with a hope that the Opposite Party Improvement Trust would complete the development work. It is averred that still the development work was not completed. Despite that vide letter dtd. 24/12/2018 Opposite Party Improvement Trust demanded a sum of 1,69,883/- towards non-construction fee, along with interest, which included the earlier discounted non-construction fee as well. It was also averred that though the development work had not been completed by the Opposite Party Improvement Trust however it was harping upon the fact that they had already delivered the possession, on the date of allotment, which meant that Opposite Party Improvement Trust had rather offered the possession of the land and not the Plot. In reply to the information sought under the RTI Act regarding development work, the Opposite Party Improvement Trust vide letter dtd. 1/4/2019 informed that no development work is pending and whatever they have to do, they had already done. They also informed that the development work was completed within 2003 to 2007. The Complainant averred that the present scheme was floated in the year 2010 with a condition that they will provide the development in 2 1/2 years from the date of allotment and vide earlier reply dtd. 16/8/2016 Opposite Party Improvement Trust has admitted that some development work is pending, which proves that they provided wrong information and the development work is still pending. In the absence of completion of development work, Complainant could not raise construction on the Plot and still Opposite Party Improvement Trust was charging non-construction charges, which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Improvement Trust. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Improvement Trust, Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer:-

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the Complainant and on perusal of the material available on record, on the issue of Pecuniary Jurisdiction, the State Commission observed as under:-