Ashok Bhan, President—This order shall dispose of revision petition No.3119 of 2007 filed by the Improvement Trust, Sangrur which was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) and revision petition No.3254 of 2007 filed by Smt. Poonam who was the complainant before the District Forum. These are cross-revision petitions filed against the same common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) in F.A. No.585 of 2006 decided on 22.5.2006 and are disposed of by a common order .

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:

Improvement Trust, Sangrur had advertised for sale/allotment of plots in 12 acres Duggi Area Scheme outside Sunami Gate, Sangrus in the year 1997 and the complainant had applied for one plot of 200 sq. yards and deposited Rs.4,000 as earnest money. After the completion of the allotment process, the complainant was allotted one plot of 200 sq. yards vide letter No.2346 dated 15.5.2001 and along with it, letter No. 2347 was also issued to her for taking delivery of possession. Complainant deposited 1/4th of the balance sale consideration on 19.4.2001 and, thereafter, deposited the remaining balance on 13.6.2001 availing 5% rebate.

3. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, complainant was mandatory required to complete the building on the plot allotted to her within 3 years from the date of issue of allotment letter, after getting the plan of the proposed building approved from the Improvement Trust or otherwise she was liable to pay non-construction fee.

4. Complainant did not start the construction nor even applied for approval of the building plan. Thus, the Improvement Trust issued a letter/notice dated 7.10.2003 for charging non-construction fee. Complainant instead of complying with the notice dated 7.10.2003, filed a complaint, before the District Forum, inter alia, alleging non-providing of basic amenities ‘because of which she could not start construction on the plot.

5. Improvement Trust, Sangrur, on being noticed, filed its written statement and took a preliminary objection that the complaint was belated and, therefore, time barred. That the plot was allotted to the complainant on 15.5.2001 and, immediately thereafter, letter of possession was issued. The complaint was filed on 12.8.2005 which was beyond period of 2 years statutorily provided under Section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Regarding the deficiency in service, it was stated that the basic amenities had been provided for. The construction was to be completed within 3 years from the date of letter of allotment and the Improvement Trust was within its right to issue letter/notice dated 7.10.2003. The site was sold to the respondent on “as is where is basis”. It was stated that between 2001 to 2003, large number of persons had constructed their houses and had starting residing in them.

6. District Forum, after taking into consideration the facts stated in the pleadings and the evidence lead by the parties, allowed the complaint holding that there was deficiency on the part of the Improvement Trust in not providing the basic facilities and the complainant was justified in not completing the construction within 3 years of the letter of allotment. The complaint was disposed of with the following directions:

“(a) Deliver/offer possession of the plot with the promised basic amenities of metalled roads, water supply and sewerage system at the earliest;

(b) Withdraw the demand on account of non-construction fee raised vide letter dated 7.10.2003 Ex C8;

(c) Count the time limit for construction of the house from the date of delivery/offer of possession of the plot along with the remaining amenities of water supply, sewerage system and metal-led roads;

(d) Pay to