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.  

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:­

1. Due to escalation Rs. 50,000/­ 2. Due to material loss Rs. 17,000/­ 3. Charges paid to architect Rs. 2,500/­ 4. Interest accrued on housing

loan Rs. 28,976/­

5. Compensation for mental pain and agony

Rs. 25,000/­

Rs. 1,13,476/­

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