PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PUDA)SAMRALA ROAD LUDHIANA PUNJAB Vs. MRS. DARSHAN BHATIA 636, SECTOR 21

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act against the impugned order dated 1.11.2007, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter stated as ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 741/2001(Pb)/RBT/478/2007 - Estate Officer, PUDA Vs. Mrs. Darshan Bhatia , by which, while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana in Complaint No. 21/8.1.2001 was upheld.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/ Respondent filed the consumer complaint in question against the Petitioner/OP-PUDA, saying that they had recovered the non-construction charges on Plot No. 2174, Phase-II, Dugri Urban Estate, Ludhiana at enhanced rates, since the re-allotment of plot in her name, for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. It was pleaded that direction be given to the Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana to charge non-Construction fees as per Rule 13 of the PUDA Act, 1995 and not in accordance with the some executive instructions.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the Petitioner/OP by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant had purchased the plot from the original allottee and; hence, she was bound by the terms and conditions contained in the said letter of allotment. As per Clause 12 of the letter of allotment, an allottee was required to complete the building within 3 years from the date of allotment. On her failure to do so, the Petitioner was liable to pay the extension fees imposed on her from time to time. It was contended that Rule 13 of the 1995 Act was not applicable in this case, but the allottee / re-allottee was governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment.