PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER PATIALA THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, PUDA BHAWAN, SECTOR 62, SAS NAGAR MOHALI Vs. HARPAL SINGH S/O SHRI AVTAR SINGH, 1128 URBAN ESTATE, PHASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions by Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short "PUDA") and its Estate Officer, are directed against a common order dated 1.10.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.1554 and 1609 of 2009. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant, Respondent herein and dismissed the Appeal preferred by PUDA, against the order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala Camp at Jalandhar in Complaint RBT No.57/2009. By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent, alleging deficiency in service on the part of PUDA in charging extension fee and delaying the issue of completion certificate in respect of a commercial building, viz. SCO 120, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar, had directed PUDA to issue completion/occupancy certificate in respect of the said building and also refund to the Respondent a sum of Rs.26,989.00, charged in excess as extension fee, along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the said deposit, i.e., 8.7.2009, till realization and also pay costs of litigation, quantified at Rs.3,000.00.

(2.) Since the controversy pertains to the aforesaid two issues viz. delay in issue of Occupancy Certificate and charging of extension fee by PUDA for delay in completion of construction by the Respondent, we deem it unnecessary to narrate the facts in extenso. It would suffice to note that the grievance of the Respondent/Complainant was that since he had completed construction of the building within time, he was not liable to pay any extension fee for delay in completion of construction as the delay in issue of the completion certificate was attributable only to PUDA, with a view to harass him.

(3.) Having heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, as well as the original file pertaining to the plot/building in question, produced by PUDA, we are of the opinion that the order impugned in these Petitions is unsustainable.