ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 28.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.256 of 2018 in which order dated 23.12.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No.30 of 2016 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the State Commission, Punjab.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/256/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC no. 30 of 2016. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 09.04.2019. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 30.11.2022 (Petitioner) and 02.03.2020 (Respondents) respectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that the complainant acquired Plot No.191, measuring 209.11 square meters, within PUDA Avenue, Old Jail Site, Gurdaspur, under the OUVGL (Optimum Utilization of vacant government lands) Scheme for residential purposes. The complainant completed the payment of Rs. 26,34,786/- on 17.02.2012, and subsequently, the OP issued a No Due certificate. The plot was allotted through allotment no. 5091 on 19.12.2011, with an assurance that the area would be developed before the instalment’s completion. However, the OP failed to meet this commitment within the stipulated timeline, which included the provision of vital amenities like water, electricity, sewerage, and metallic roads, mandated by the PUDA Scheme. The funds deposited by the complainant remained with the OP without accruing any interest. The complainant never obtained official possession of the plot. Additionally, the site plan was not sanctioned during a single visit. Consequently, the complainant contends that the OP has no valid reason to impose a penalty for construction delays due to the area’s non-development. This highlights a deficiency in services, prompting the complainant to initiate a legal complaint before the District Forum, Gurdaspur. The forum initially issued a restraining order on 11.01.16, effective for a 30-day period. Subsequently, in an order dated 23.12.2016, the forum recommended transferring the case to the Civil Court, granting the complainant the discretion to do so, owing to the jurisdictional constraints of Consumer Forum. The case was subsequently elevated to the State Commission in Chandigarh, which, upon review, remanded the case back to District Forum, affirming its jurisdiction over the matter.

4. Vide Order dated 11.01.2016 an interim restraining order was passed by District Forum Gurdaspur. By an Order dated 23.12.2016 in the CC no. 30 of 2016, the District Forum, directed the transfer of the case to the Civil court, granting the Complainant the choice and option to do so. Subsequently, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission, Punjab, which, through an Order dated 23.08.2017 in FA No. 206 of 2017, remanded the complaint back to the District Forum. Further, through an Order dated 23.02.2018 in the CC no. 568 of 2017, the District Forum directed the OP to furnish the necessary infrastructure within a span of 3 months and abstain from imposing any penalty due to non-construction. Additionally, the OP was instructed to compensate the Complainant with Rs.10,000 as both a cost and compensation for the endured harassment.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order