ROPAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs MANMOHAN KAUR

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 24.12.1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum), whereby the complaint was accepted and the opposite parties were directed to refund of additional non-construction fee of Rs. 9,548/-.

THE complainant had approached the District Forum, Ropar with the grievance that the building site plan submitted by him to the opposite parties was sanctioned on 2.4.1997. THE complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,280/- on 9.3.1998 as penalty for non-construction. THE said penalty was for the year 1998 i.e. upto 31.12.1998. However, prior to that the complainant had moved an application for extension of time limit for construction on 30.3.1998 requiring her a further deposit of the impugned amount though that deposit earned her only a meagre extension upto 20.3.1999 beyond the extended date of 31.12.1998 already allowed as per Ex. P-6 on 9.3.1998. THE complainant asserted that the additional deposit was made under the compulsion of the notice dated 25.6.1998 issued by the opposite parties. The opposite parties in their writen version admitted that the complainant purchased the plot from its original allottee - Sh. Harnam Singh and the same was transferred in the name of the complainant on 21.4.1995. It was also admitted that the complainant submitted the building site plan on 20.1.1997 and the same was sanctioned by the opposite parties vide memo No. 579 dated 2.4.1997. It was stated that the complainant failed to construct the building within the prescribed period under the statutory rules. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the allottee was bound by the terms and conditions and instructions issued by the Govt. from time to time. It was also admitted that the non-construction fee was charged for completion of the construction of the booth in question upto 31.12.1997 as per instructions of the State Government. Non-construction fee for the year 1998 was due against the allottee because he had not completed the construction over the said booth-site upto 31.12.1997. A notice in this context was issued to the complainant on 27.3.1998. The complainant moved an application dated 30.3.1998 (Ex. R-9) which was received in the office of the opposite party - Trust on 31.3.1998 for getting extension for construction of booth in question as the sanctioned period of the building site plan had already expired on 2.4.1998. The opposite parties extended the period upto 20.3.1999 after the receipt of the late construction fee as per rules.

After considering the evidence on record the District Forum passed the impugned order. Dissatisfied with the order the opposite parties have filed this appeal for setting aside the impugned order.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The findings of the District Forum, Ropar, on the basis of the material on record, are not erroneous and are sustainable in law. The District Forum observed that the additional non-construction penalty of Rs. 9,548/- was deposited with the opposite parties. The Ropar Improvement Trust obviously ought not to have demanded it when the construction had admittedly been completed on 23.9.1998. Ex. R-9 goes to show that Smt. Manmohan Kaur made an application to the opposite parties on 30.3.1998 praying for extension of time for construction of booth without specifying the period for extension. In response to this application, the opposite parties vide letter No. 985 dated 20.7.1998 (Ex. R-10) extended the period upto 20.3.1999. Although the opposite parties have not placed on record the Punjab Govt. instructions issued vide Memo No. 5/74/95-3LG 11/1998 dated 4.4.1995 with regard to policy regarding charging of non-construction fee and extension of time limit thereof, but some additions to these instructions have been placed on record as Ex. R-8. Vide this letter guidelines for calculation of the non-construction fee have been issued. There is nothing to show that the fee has to be worked out on day to day basis or on year to year basis even if the allottee complete its construction within 2-3 months from the start of the calendar year. For reference paras (i) and (ii) are reproduced below : "(i) Base year has been filed as the year 1988 or the first year, as the case may be. All such allotments in respect of which normal period of non-construction expired prior to 1988, the year 1988 will be considered as first year for the purpose of charging non-construction fee. (ii) The revised rates of non-construction fee will be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1998. All the affected allottees may thus, intimated by giving written notice/or through press that in case they fail to construct building over plot by 31.12.1997, non-construction fee will be charged at revised rates w.e.f. 1.1.1998."

In the absence of details we take it that the non-construction fee is worked out from year to year basis as is apparent from the abovesaid instructions. Moreover, there is no detail in the receipt for Rs. 9,548/- issued on 2.7.1998 (Ex. P-5) to show the period for which the amount has been received. The observation of the District Forum that the additional non-construction penalty of Rs. 9,548/- was deposited and the opposite party - Trust obviously could not demand it now when the construction had admittedly been completed on 23.9.1998 remained un-rebutted. It is clear that the complainant had completed the construction on the booth site upto 23.9.1998. Thus, the recovery of non-construction fee for the subsequent period is arbitrary which the complainant alleged to have deposited under compulsion.

IN totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to differ from the findings arrived at by the District Forum. This appeal is meritless, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Order of the District Forum is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.