- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Puda v. Dr. Santosh Arora
Summary of Opinion — NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (Revision Petition No. 2466 of 2013)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners (PUDA & Anr.; PUDA now Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority and the Estate Officer, PUDA) challenged the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order dated 27.02.2013 in Appeal No. 787 of 2008 (PUDA (Now Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority) & Anr. Vs. Dr. Santosh Arora), by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Forum's order allowing the complaint.
Brief facts: The respondent/complainant, Dr. Santosh Arora, was allotted Plot No. 3001 (400 sq. yds.) in Sector 38-39, Samrala Road, Ludhiana by allotment letter dated 13.10.1999 and paid the entire sale price. When the complainant applied for a no-dues certificate, the OP/petitioners issued a letter dated 12.08.2005 raising a demand of Rs. 1,04,894/- for the period 2003–2005 as a non-construction (extension) fee, which the complainant alleged was illegal and constituted deficiency in service.
Procedural history: The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking quashing of the demand. The OP contested maintainability, contending that the complainant did not fall within the consumer jurisdiction because the demand for extension fee was not a deficiency. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to charge non-construction fee in accordance with rule 13 of the 1995 Act. The State Commission dismissed PUDA's appeal on 27.02.2013, upholding the District Forum. PUDA filed this revision petition challenging the State Commission's order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether charging of extension (non-construction) fee falls within the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act and whether consumer fora have jurisdiction to examine the correctness of such demands.
- Whether the demand raised by the OP pursuant to the amendment of Rule 13 (Notification dated 08.10.2001) was legal and, if not, what remedy is available to the complainant.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' (PUDA) Arguments
- Charging of extension fee does not fall within the purview of "service" and therefore the complaint before the consumer forum was not maintainable.
- The petitioners were charging extension fee as per the amended rules; hence the District Forum erred in allowing the complaint and the State Commission erred in dismissing the appeal.
Respondent's (Dr. Santosh Arora) Arguments
- The order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and did not call for interference; the revision petition should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2005) 2 SCC 479 HUDA Vs. Sunita | Held that the consumer fora (including National Commission) had no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of demands of composition fee and extension fee raised by HUDA. | The Court relied on this decision to conclude that charging of extension fee does not fall within the purview of "service" and that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness of such demands; accordingly, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. |
| R.P. 2125 of 2006 Narinder Singh Nanda Vs. P.U.D.A | Referred to the Sunita case and other cases; observed that since PUDA had charged extension fee illegally under Government notifications struck down prior to deposit, the complainant was entitled to interest and refund of extension fee. | The judgment was relied upon by the respondent and noted by the Court; the opinion notes that this judgment was referred by the Apex Court in a subsequent civil appeal involving PUDA. |
| C.A. No. 8314-15/2010 PUDA Vs. Narinder Singh Nanda | Reference by the Apex Court to the R.P. 2125/2006 decision involving PUDA (as cited in the opinion). | The Court noted the referral by the Apex Court to the R.P. judgment; this context was used to explain prior adjudications concerning PUDA's charging of extension fees. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined whether charging of extension fee falls within the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act so as to confer jurisdiction on consumer fora. It relied principally on the Apex Court's decision in (2005) 2 SCC 479 HUDA Vs. Sunita, which held that consumer fora do not have jurisdiction to go into the correctness of demands of composition fee and extension fee. On the basis of that authority, the Court concluded that charging of extension fee does not fall within the purview of "service" and that Consumer Fora lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness of such demands.
The Court then addressed the merits only insofar as they were raised: the allotment date was 13.10.1999 with a three-year period for completion of construction. Construction was not completed within that period and, by a Notification dated 08.10.2001 amending Rule 13, a demand was raised. The Court observed that since an amendment to Rule 13 was incorporated, there was no apparent error in raising the demand pursuant to the amended rule. Nevertheless, because Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to examine the correctness of extension fee demands, any grievance about the legality of that demand must be pursued by the complainant through other appropriate remedies to quash it.
Applying these principles, the Court found the complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable and that the District Forum and State Commission should not have quashed the demand; accordingly, it allowed the revision petition.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision petition is ALLOWED. The impugned order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 787 of 2008 (PUDA Vs. Dr. Santosh Arora) and the order of the District Forum dated 16.05.2008 are set aside. The complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the District Forum's and State Commission's orders quashing the extension (non-construction) fee demand are set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
- Consistent with the Apex Court's precedent cited in the opinion, consumer fora do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness of extension fee demands; aggrieved parties must resort to other appropriate remedies (for example, challenging the legality of the demand by proceedings other than a consumer complaint).
- The opinion does not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond applying the cited authority; it applies existing precedent to the facts before the Court.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2466 OF 2013
(Against the Order dated 27/02/2013 in Appeal No. 787/2008 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. PUDA & ANR.
THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL CHEIF ADMINSTRATION
OFFICER, FEROZEPUR ROAD,
LUDHINA
PUNJAB
2. ESTATE OFFICER, PUDA,
FEROZEPUR ROAD,
LUDHIANA
PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. DR. SANTOSH ARORA
D/O SH.BASTI RAM ARORA, W/O DR. SUBHASH BATTA, R/O B-XXX-1258, KRISHNA NAGAR, GHUMAR
MANDI, CIVIL LINES
LUDHIANA
PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MRS. RACHANA JOSHI ISSAR For the Respondent : MR. J.S. AHLUWALIA Dated : 05 May 2014
ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 787 of 2008 PUDA (Now Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority) & Anr. Vs. Dr. Santosh Arora by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was allotted Plot No. 3001, measuring 400 sq. yds. in Sector 38-39, Samrala Road, Ludhiana by OP/petitioners vide allotment letter dated 13.10.1999 and entire sale price of the plot was paid. Complainant applied for no dues certificate, but OP vide letter dated 12.8.2005 raised an illegal demand of Rs.1,04,894/- for the period from 2003 to 2005 on account of non-construction against the rules and regulations. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for quashing the demand. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall with the purview of consumer as demand of xtension feeis not a deficiency. Allotment of plot was admitted, but it was submitted that as complainant was required to complete the building within the period of 3 years from the date of allotment letter and as he failed to comply with
1
the terms and conditions, demand raised by OP was legal and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to charge non-construction fee in accordance with rule 13 of 1995 Act. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that charging of xtension feedoes not fall within the purview of service and complaint was not maintainable and further submitted that petitioner was charging xtension feeas per amended rules; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. First of all, it is to be seen whether charging of xtension feefalls within the purview of service under Consumer Protection Act or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court delivered in (2005) 2 SCC 479 HUDA Vs. Sunita which has also been referred by learned State Commission in which it was held that : . On the above finding, the National Commission had no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of omposition feeand xtension feemade by HUDA from the respondent complainant. 5. On the National Commission own reasoning and the interpretation of provisions of law with which we agree, this appeal deserves to be allowed. In our opinion, the National Commission having held that it has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demands made by HUDA ought to have set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission setting aside the demand of omposition feeand xtension fee We, therefore, allow this appeal upholding the order of the National Commission. We set aside the order of the District Forum and the State Commission to the extent of quashing the demand of omposition feeof Rs.53,808 and xtension feeof Rs.6300/-. 6. We, however, make it clear that the respondent complainant may resort to any other appropriate remedy for questioning the aforesaid demands if they are not in accordance with law. The appeal, thus, stands allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above 6. Thus, it becomes clear that charging of extension fee does not fall with the purview of service and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to go into correctness of demands made on account of xtension fee Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. 2125 of 2006 Narinder Singh Nanda Vs. P.U.D.A. in which while referring judgment of Sunita case (Supra) and other cases it was observed that as PUDA has charged xtension feeillegally under the Government notifications which were struck down prior to the date of deposit, the complainant was entitled to get interest from the date of deposit of amount of xtension feealong with refund of xtension fee This judgement has been referred by Apex Court in C.A. No. 8314-15/2010 PUDA Vs. Narinder Singh Nanda. 7. As Honle Apex Court in Sunita case (Supra) has held that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of demand for xtension fee we hold that complaint was not maintainable before District Forum and complaint was liable to be dismissed. 8. As far as merits of the case are concerned, plot was allotted to the complainant on 13.10.1999 and 3 years period for completion of construction was provided. Construction was not completed within this period and in the light of Notification dated 8.10.2001, amending rule 13, demand was raised. Learned District forum also directed OP to charge non-construction fee in accordance with rule 13 of the 1995 Act. As necessary amendment has been incorporated in rule 13, apparently, we do not find any error in raising demand in pursuance to amended rule 13 of the Act; even then,
2
if complainant feels that such demand cannot be raised; he may have resort to any other appropriate remedy for quashing the aforesaid demand. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 787 of 2008 PUDA Vs. Dr. Santosh Arora and order of District Forum dated 16.5.2008 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
MEMBER
3
Alert