keyboard_arrow_up

PUNJAB URBAN PLANN. vs KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA . On 2018-09-25

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

Non­Reportable
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
CIVILAPPEALNo.4639OF2010
PunjabUrbanPlanning&
DevelopmentAuthority&Anr. .Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KanwaljitSinghAhluwalia&Anr.Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
AbhayManoharSapre,J.
1. Thisappealisdirectedagainstthefinaljudgment
and  order  dated  05.01.2009  passed  by  the  National
ConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission,NewDelhi
in  Revision  Petition  No.  3268  of  2008  whereby  the
National  Consumer  Commission  dismissed  the
RevisionPetition.
1
2. Facts  of  the  case  and  the  issue  involved  in  the
appeallieinanarrowcompassaswouldbeclearfrom
thenarrationofthefactsstated infra .
3. The  Punjab  Urban  Planning  and  Development
Authority  (for  short  called  Authority)­appellant  No.1
isthestatutoryauthoritycreatedundertheActforthe
StateofPunjab.
4. The  respondents  purchased  one  plot  on
12.08.1998  bearing  No.  795  Phase  ­I  Urban  Estate
Patiala  from  the  appellant­Authority  pursuant  to  one
schemefortheconstructionoftheirresidentialhouse.
The  respondents,  after  purchase,  ensured  compliance
of  all  necessary  formalities  and  started  construction
work  on  the  plot.  The  construction  work  had  to  be
stopped  by  the  respondents  at  the  instance  of  the
appellanthalfway.
5. It  is  the  case  of  the  respondents  that  but  for  no
fault  of  theirs,  the  construction  remained  incomplete
formorethanoneyearanddespiterepeated requests
2
made  by  the  respondents  to  allow  them  to 

Non­Reportable
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION
CIVILAPPEALNo.4639OF2010
PunjabUrbanPlanning&
DevelopmentAuthority&Anr. .Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KanwaljitSinghAhluwalia&Anr.Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
AbhayManoharSapre,J.
1. Thisappealisdirectedagainstthefinaljudgment
and  order  dated  05.01.2009  passed  by  the  National
ConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission,NewDelhi
in  Revision  Petition  No.  3268  of  2008  whereby  the
National  Consumer  Commission  dismissed  the
RevisionPetition.
1
2. Facts  of  the  case  and  the  issue  involved  in  the
appeallieinanarrowcompassaswouldbeclearfrom
thenarrationofthefactsstated infra .
3. The  Punjab  Urban  Planning  and  Development
Authority  (for  short  called  Authority)­appellant  No.1
isthestatutoryauthoritycreatedundertheActforthe
StateofPunjab.
4. The  respondents  purchased  one  plot  on
12.08.1998  bearing  No.  795  Phase  ­I  Urban  Estate
Patiala  from  the  appellant­Authority  pursuant  to  one
schemefortheconstructionoftheirresidentialhouse.
The  respondents,  after  purchase,  ensured  compliance
of  all  necessary  formalities  and  started  construction
work  on  the  plot.  The  construction  work  had  to  be
stopped  by  the  respondents  at  the  instance  of  the
appellanthalfway.
5. It  is  the  case  of  the  respondents  that  but  for  no
fault  of  theirs,  the  construction  remained  incomplete
formorethanoneyearanddespiterepeated requests
2
made  by  the  respondents  to  allow  them  to  start  and
complete  the  construction  work,  the  appellant  did
nothing.
6. This  gave  rise  to  filing  of  the  complaint  by  the
respondentsagainsttheappellant­Authorityunderthe
Consumer  Protection  Act  before  the  District  Forum
seekingmonetarycompensationasfollows:­
1. Duetoescalation Rs.50,000/­
2. Duetomaterialloss Rs.17,000/­
3. Chargespaidtoarchitect Rs.2,500/­
4. Interestaccruedonhousing
loan Rs.28,976/­
5. Compensation  for  mental
painandagony Rs.25,000/­
Rs.1,13,476/­
 7. Therespondents interalia complainedthatitwas
a clear  case of deficiency in service on the part of the
Authorityasaresultofwhichtherespondentshadto
suffer  losses,  but  for  no  fault  of  theirs  and,  therefore,
theyareentitledtoclaimtheaforementionedmonetary
claim  under  specified  heads  from  the  Authority
(appellant  No.1  herein).  The  appellant­Authority
contestedthecomplaint.
3
8. By  order  dated  12.06.2001,  the  District  forum
allowed  the  respondents  complaint  by  recording  the
followingfindingagainsttheappellantsandawardeda
sum  of  Rs.1,13,476/­  to  the  respondents  under
variousheadsmentionedabove:
 The  whole  procedure  and  exercise
of  rejection of the previouslysanctioned  site
plan  (29.11.97)  and  subsequently  again
reverting  to  the  same  (29.11.97)  and
subsequently  passing  of  the  second  site  plan
on  29.12.98  was  nothing  but  only  to  harass
the  consumer.  It  is  the  responsibility  of  the
respondent  to  pay  the  loss  which  were
suffered  by  the  complainant.  The
respondents  themselves  admitted  that  the
delay  was  cause  due  to  their  inefficient  and
improper  decisions.  It  is  because  of  this
reason,  they  are  ready  to  waive  of  non­
construction  fee  for  1999.  It  is  thus  clear
proof  of  deficiency  in  service  on  the  part  of
Respondent.
9. The  appellant  felt  aggrieved  and  filed  appeal
beforetheStateforum.Theappealwasdismissedand,
therefore,theyfiledrevisionbeforetheNationalforum.
Byimpugnedorder,theNationalforumalsodismissed
the  revision  and  confirmed  the  orders  passed  by  the
4
District  and  State  forum  which  gives  rise  to  filing  of
thisappealbywayofspecialleaveinthisCourt.
10. HeardMrs.RachanaJoshiIssar,learnedcounsel
fortheappellantsandMr.LavKumarAgrawal,learned
counselfortherespondents.
11. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel for  the parties
and  on  perusal  of  the  record  of  the  case,  we  find  no
meritintheappeal.
12. Inourconsideredview,theconcurrentfindingsof
three  forums,  namely,  District  forum,  State  Appellate
forum  and  lastly,  the  National  revisionary  forum  do
not  call  for  any  interference.  These  findings  are
binding  on  this  Court.  It  is  more  so  because  we  have
not  noticed  any  kind  of  perversity  or  illegality  or
arbitrarinessinthesefindings.
13. All  the  three  forums  categorically,  on  facts,  held
that  the  respondents  were  never  at  fault  at  any  stage
afterpurchasingtheplotfromtheappellant­Authority
but  it  was  the  Authority,  who  was  at  fault  due  to
5
whichtherespondentscausedloss,inconvenienceand
mental  harassment  while  completing  construction  of
their  residential  house  on  the  plot  which  remained
incompleteformorethanoneyear.
14. It  was  found  that  there  was  absolutely  no
justification  on  the  part  of  the  Authority  to  create
obstacles  once  they  cleared  every  thing  to  enable  the
respondents  to  go  ahead  with  the  work  of
construction.Indeed,asperthefinding,theAuthority
too  admitted  undue  delay  on  their  part  in  permitting
the  respondents  to  complete  the  work.  The
respondentswerecompelledtostoptheworkhalfway
for  a  long  time  due  to  which  their  time,  money  and
material  were  lost  and  they  were  deprived  of  living  in
their  house.  The  finding  quoted  above,  which  was
rightlyupheldbytheAppellateandrevisionaryforum,
justifiestheirconclusion.
15. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant­Authority,
however,arguedwithvehemencethattherespondents
6
complaint  itself  was  misconceived  and  that  in  any
event,  it  was  incapable  of  being  entertained  and
eventually  being  allowed  on  facts  and  in  law  but  we
werenotimpressedbyhersubmissions.
16. Oncethethreeforums,onfacts,heldagainstthe
appellant­Authority  (a  finding  quoted  above),  then  we
are  not  inclined  to  go  into  any  issue  which,  even
otherwise,doesnotariseforconsideration.
17. In  the  light  of   the  foregoing  discussion,  we  find
no  merit  in  the  appeal,  which  fails  and  is  accordingly
dismissed  with  costs  quantified  at  Rs.10,000/­
payablebytheappellant­Authoritytotherespondents.
   
 
...................................J.
 [ABHAYMANOHARSAPRE]
 .....................................J.
[MOHANM.SHANTANAGOUDAR]
NewDelhi;
September25,2018
7

Show less
Join Us

Create annotations and case research papers through full feature set along with access to entire Supreme Court Judgements database. Sign up Now!

Judgement Profile

Diary Number 21975 / 2009

Case Number C.A. No.-004639-004639 / 2010

Judgment Date 25-09-2018

Bench HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

RACHANA JOSHI ISSAR

KESHAV RANJAN

CITED KEYWORDS