PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. GURKIRPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 30.7.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the "district Forum" ).

(2.) Brief facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant Smt. Gurkirpal Kaur had purchased Plot No.3045, Phase IX, Urban Estate, Patiala from Shri S. S. Uppal, the original owner, on 16.11.1996 and the instalments had been duly paid. No due certificate before the sale purchase was also issued by the opposite party. The opposite party had also issued a transfer letter on 10.2.1997. The complainant had submitted building plan for approval on 21.3.1997 and had deposited Rs.500/- as requisite fee. Before permission for the purchase was granted, non-construction fee till then was deposited by the complainant. The building plan submitted by the complainant was finally approved on 7.4.2000. The opposite party later on asked the complainant to pay Rs.49,710/- as non-construction charges. According to the complainant, the opposite party had not sanctioned the building plan for three years and only paper possession was given. Thus, according to the complainant, it was not possible for her to raise the construction due to non-sanctioning of plan and, therefore, the demand of Rs.49,710/- was unjustified and it amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant had sold the plot to one Roshan Lal on 20.5.2002 after obtaining requisite permission from the opposite party on depositing the impugned demand amount under protest reserving the right to recover the same being illegal and unjustified. A prayer was made in the complaint for seeking a direction to the opposite party to refund the said amount with compensation and costs.

(3.) The opposite party in its reply stated that the complaint was not maintainable and the complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complainant was required to pay non-construction charges for the subsequent period as well and the demand raised by the opposite party was justified.