PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PUDA) AUTHORITY(PUDA) THROUGH IST CHIEF ADMINSTRATOR, SCO Vs. SURINDER SINGH S/O GURMAIL SINGH, R/O HOUSE NO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ), is to the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short the State Commission ), in First Appeal No.574 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission while concurring with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, (for short, the District Forum ) to the effect that the demand of enhanced extension fee demanded by Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) was unjustified, has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by PUDA, with costs of Rs. 5,000.00.

(2.) The Complainant, purchased a Plot bearing No.200, measuring 250 sq. yards, from the original allottee Smt. Rajni Chhabra. The transfer of the plot in his name was effected by PUDA vide letter dated 28.5.2004. The transfer was subject to the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder. When the Complainant filed application, dated 15.12.2006, for issue of Partial Completion Certificate and permission for occupation of the house, built on the subject plot, a demand in the sum of Rs. 66,108.00, towards extension fee was made by PUDA. The Complainant paid the said amount under protest, vide Cheque dated 02.05.2007. The requisite permission certificate was issued on 14.05.2007.

(3.) According to the Complainant, extension fee for delay in undertaking construction on the plot, i.e., non-construction fee, could be charged only as per the rates prescribed in Rule 13 of PUDA Rules, 1995. It was alleged that PUDA had charged extension fee of Rs. 66,108.00 from the Complainant at the enhanced rates fixed vide letter dated 15.01.1998 for the years 2004 and 2005, as against lesser rates prescribed under Rule 13, according to which, the said fee payable worked out to only Rs. 735.00 (Rs. 1.26x250=Rs. 315.00 for the year 2004 and Rs. 1.68x250= 420.00). It was averred that PUDA had charged Rs. 65,373.00(Rs. 66108.00minus Rs. 735.00), which was in clear violation of Rule 13 of PUDA Rules. The plea of the Complainant was that the issue stood concluded in his favour by the decision of the Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tehal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., CWP No. 18986 of 2002 . Having failed to convince PUDA, the Complainant approached the District Forum, seeking direction to PUDA to refund an amount of Rs. 65,373.00 with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of payment i.e., 02.05.2007, till the date of realisation, with compensation of Rs. 20,000.00 and costs.