NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Bimla Vati – Appellant
versus
Improvement Trust – Respondent
First Appeal No.1114 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 11/04/2019 in Complaint No.285/2019 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 30.12.2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Valid possession – Without completion of development work, i.e., approachable road, potable water and other basic amenities which make a plot a habitable one, offering possession of a residential plot is just a paper-possession and cannot be said to be a valid possession.
(2) Non-construction fee – In the present case the development work has not been completed by the OP Trust, and without offering valid possession OP Trust cannot impose non-construction fee.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Appeal is filed against order of State Commission whereby Compliant was was dismissed in limine finding no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Improvement Trust – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – plea raised as to State Commission does possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction where the sale consideration is Rs. 11,04,689/-, interest @18% for the delayed period for six years – In terms of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the State Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore – In the present case, the sale consideration is Rs. 11,04,689/- and even if a part of the compensation claimed by the complainant, i.e., interest @18% for the delayed period for six years, i.e., Rs. 11,93,064/-, is added to the said sale consideration, the aggregate would be much above Rs. 20 Lakh. Therefore, the Complaint was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The State Commission erred in holding that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the Complaint. The findings recorded by the State Commission are set aside. [Para 16].

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Alleged delay in physical possession of the Plot – Whether Complaint is barred by limitation – On facts, there was continuous cause of action till date – Therefore, the Complaint filed before the State Commission on 09.04.2019 was well within limitation and the State Commission erred in holding the Complaint as barred by limitation. The findings recorded by the State Commission are set aside. [Para 17]

Held: Complainant was in touch with the OP Trust. In reply to the information sought under RTI Act, the Opposite Party Improvement Trust vide letter dated 16.08.2016 informed that some development work was pending in the Scheme. Vide letter dated 13.07.2016 the Opposite Party Improvement Trust asked the Complainant to avail 50% discount on non-construction fee and pay Rs. 68,640/-. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.72,452/- on 19.09.2016 with a hope that the Opposite Party Improvement Trust would complete the development work. Vide letter dated 24.12.2018 Opposite Party Improvement Trust again demanded a sum of Rs.1,69,883/- towards non-construction fee, along with interest, which included the earlier discounted non-construction fee as well, which the Complainant did not deposit. The OP Trust neither gave the physical possession of the Plot nor refunded the deposited amount till date.

(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Alleged delay in handing over physical possession of Plot – Charging of ‘no-construction fee’ by OP Trust even before valid possession – legality of – Deficiency of Service if can be fastened – Without handing over valid possession, the OP Trust cannot charge ‘no-construction fee’ – Thus, Without completion of development work, i.e., approachable road, potable water and other basic amenities which make a plot a habitable one, offering possession of a residential plot is just a paper-possession and cannot be said to be a valid possession – In the instant case, the development work/activities were completed by the OP Trust only in the year 2019, therefore, they are not entitled to charge any ‘no-construction fee’ from the Complainant, rather there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP Trust for delay of about 6 years in completing the Development Work/Activity on the site, for which they are liable to compensate the Complainant. [Para 19]

Held: The Appeal is partly allowed in following terms:-

(i) The OP Improvement Trust is directed to hand over the physical possession of the Plot in question, to the Complainant, within 6 weeks from today;

(ii) The Complainant is directed to raise construction on the Plot within two years from the date of receiving the Physical possession of the Plot. The OP Improvement Trust shall not charge ‘no-construction fee’ upto the above-said period from the Complainant.

(iii) The OP Improvement Trust is directed to refund the amount of Rs.72,452/- received from the Complainant on 19.09.2016 towards non-construction fee and the ‘non-construction fee’ raised by the OP Trust vide letter dated 24.12.2018 is ordered to be quashed.

(iv) The OP Improvement Trust is also directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.2 lakh towards lumpsum compensation for delay in completing the development work, delay in handing over the physical possession of the plot and mental agony etc., within 6 weeks from today.

(v) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.