Case: PUNJAB URBAN PLANN Vs. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

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 infra3. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short calledAuthority)-appellant No.1 is the statutory authority created under the Act for the State of Punjabpurchased one plot on 12.08.1998 bearing No.795 Phase -I Urban Estate Patiala from the appellant-Authority 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 way5. 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 repeatedrequests 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 appellant-Authority 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/-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 claimunder specified heads from the Authority (appellant No.1 herein). The appellant-Authority contested the complaint.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 respondentto 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 Respondent9. 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 District and State forum which gives rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

Court's reasoning:
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 findings13. 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 butit was the Authority, who was at fault due to which the respondents caused loss, inconvenience and mental harassment while completing construction of their residentialhouse on the plot which remained incomplete for more than one year14. 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 theirThe finding quoted above, which was rightly upheld by the Appellate and revisionary forum, justifies their conclusion.