Jurisdiction issues arise when service defects prevent valid possession; unauthorized fees violate consumer rights.

1. Bimla Vati has filed the present First Appeal against the Order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by Bimla Vati (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was dismissed in limine finding no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Improvement Trust, (hereinafter referred to as the OP Trust) having no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the Complaint and the Complaint being barred by time, with costs of 5,000 to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account..

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant, a retired Government Teacher, was allotted a Plot No. 444, admeasuring 239.11 sq. yards in Scheme No. 2, Rajiv Gandhi Avenue, Hoshiarpur floated by Opposite Party Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party Improvement Trust") under Punjab Government Pensioners' quota for a total sale consideration of 11,04,689 + 4% cess vide allotment letter dated 22.9.2010. The Scheme was extension of already existing scheme, which was framed way back from June, 1996 to 2001. The Complainant made total payment of 13,03,736 as per demand of the Opposite Party Improvement Trust. As per Clause 7 of the Allotment letter the development work was to be completed within 2½ years and possession of the plot can be taken after execution of the sale agreement with the Opposite Party Improvement Trust. As per Clause 11 of the allotment letter construction on the Plot was to be completed within 3 years from the date of allotment. Even though as per Clause 7 of the allotment letter Opposite Party Improvement Trust was bound to complete the development work within 2½ years yet they failed to complete the development work till the date of filing of the Complaint. It is averred that offer of possession without completing the development work, is not a valid offer of possession. In other words, Complainant cannot raise construction without having a valid possession in absence of completion of development work. Despite the fact that the Opposite Party Improvement Trust failed to complete the development work, they started charging non - construction charges after three years from the date of allotment letter. The Complainant protested against the imposing of non - construction charges vide letters dated 25.9.2015 and 22.11.2015, but in vain. It is averred that in reply to the information sought under RTI Act, the Opposite Party Improvement Trust vide letter dated 16.8.2016 informed that some development work was pending in the Scheme, which shows that even by that time the Development work was not completed and Opposite Party Improvement Trust was not entitled to demand non - construction charges. Despite that Opposite Party Improvement Trust continued imposing penalty for non - construction. Vide letter dated 13.7.2016 the Opposite Party Improvement Trust asked the Complainant to avail 50% discount on non - construction fee and pay 68,640 otherwise warned of action against her. Complainant deposited a sum of 72,452 on 19.9.2016 with a hope that the Opposite Party Improvement Trust would complete the development work. It is averred that still the development work was not completed. Despite that vide letter dated 24.12.2018 Opposite Party Improvement Trust demanded a sum of 1,69,883 towards non - construction fee, along with interest, which included the earlier discounted non - construction fee as well. It was also averred that though the development work had not been completed by the Opposite Party Improvement Trust howeve