PUNJAB URBAN PLANN. vs. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA .

       Non­Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4639 OF 2010 Punjab Urban Planning  &  Development Authority & Anr.        ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia & Anr.    …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 05.01.2009 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in   Revision   Petition   No.   3268   of   2008   whereby   the National   Consumer   Commission   dismissed   the Revision Petition.  Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.09.26 11:20:20 IST Reason: 1 2. Facts of the case and the issue involved in the appeal lie in a narrow compass as would be clear from the narration of the facts stated  infra . 3. The   Punjab   Urban   Planning   and   Development Authority (for short called “Authority”)­appellant No.1 is the statutory authority created under the Act for the State of Punjab. 4. The   respondents   purchased   one   plot   on 12.08.1998   bearing   No.   795   Phase   ­I   Urban   Estate Patiala from the appellant­Authority pursuant to one scheme for the construction of their residential house. 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 appellant half way.  5. It is the case of the respondents that but for no fault of theirs, the construction remained incomplete for more than one year and despite repeated  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 respondents against the appellant­Authority under the Consumer   Protection   Act   before   the   District   Forum seeking  monetary compensation as follows:­

 7. The respondents  inter alia  complained that it was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Authority as a result of which the respondents had to suffer losses, but for no fault of theirs and, therefore, they are entitled to claim the aforementioned monetary claim   under   specified   heads   from   the   Authority (appellant   No.1   herein).   The   appellant­Authority contested the complaint. 3 8. By   order   dated   12.06.2001,   the   District   forum allowed the respondents’ complaint by recording the following finding against the appellants and awarded a sum   of   Rs.1,13,476/­   to   the   respondents   under various heads mentioned above: “……The whole procedure and exercise of rejection of the previously sanctioned 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 before the State forum. The appeal was dismissed and, therefore, they filed revision before the National forum. By impugned order, the National forum also dismissed the revision and confirmed the orders passed by the 4 District and State forum which gives rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court. 10. Heard Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.  11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. 12. In our considered view, the concurrent findings of 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 arbitrariness in these findings.         13. All the three forums categorically, on facts, held that the respondents were never at fault at any stage after purchasing the plot from the appellant­ Authority but   it   was   the   Authority,   who   was   at   fault   due   to 5 which the respondents caused loss, inconvenience and mental harassment while completing construction of their   residential   house   on   the   plot   which   remained incomplete for more than one year. 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, as per the finding, the Authority too admitted undue delay on their part in permitting the   respondents   to   complete   the   work.   The respondents were compelled to stop the work half way 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 rightly upheld by the Appellate and  revisionary forum, justifies their conclusion.  15. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant­Authority, however, argued with vehemence that the respondents’ 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 were not impressed by her submissions.  16. Once the three forums, on facts, held against the appellant­Authority (a finding quoted above), then we are   not   inclined   to   go   into   any   issue   which,   even otherwise, does not arise for consideration. 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/­ payable by the appellant­Authority to the respondents.                    ………...................................J.    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                      …...……..................................J.     [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] New Delhi; September 25, 2018  7