Development Authority vs RAJ SINGH RANA

-THIS order of ours will decide two cross appeals bearing Nos. 260 and 266 both of 2004 filed against one and the same order dated 10.3.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 591/2002.

MR. Raman Gaur, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant-Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as HUDA) made the sole submission that under the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, the District Forum should have awarded interest on the additional amount, which was sought to be paid by the complainant @ 15% per annum and the District Forum went wrong in issuing direction to HUDA to calculate interest @ 7% per annum on the 3rd and 4th enhancement and refund the extra amount charged from the complainant with interest at the said rate of 7% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., 8.7.2002 till the date of refund. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate felt aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the District Forum wrongly fixed the date of interest from the date of filing of the complaint and that it should have been ordered to be paid w.e.f. the date of deposit.

So far as the submission of Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, learned Counsel for the HUDA is concerned, it may be pointed out that the District Forum relied on Condition No. 8 of letter of allotment dated 22.3.1974, which clearly and categorically provide interest being calculated @ 7% per annum. Condition No. 8 has been extracted in the impugned order, the reading of which clearly shows that the balance 50% of the total tentative sale price was payable either in lumpsum within 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter without interest or in two equated annual instalments with interest @ 7% per annum. The first and the remaining instalments of the balance amount together with interest @ 7% per annum on the unpaid amount of the total tentative sale price shall fall due for payment as under and no notice shall be served on the allottee but in case an instalment is not paid in time, the allottee will be served with the notice to pay the same within one month together with sum not exceeding the amount of instalment as may be determined by HUDA.

MR. Raman Gaur, Advocate contended that Condition No. 8 has wrongly been applied and he referred to Condition No. 4 of the letter of allotment, a copy of which has been placed on the file of the complaint case, which was summoned from the District Forum today in connection with the hearing of the appeal. Condition No. 4 of the letter of allotment (Annexure A-2) reads as under: "4. The above price of the plot is subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the plot as well as in case of enhancement of compensation of acquisition cost of land of this sector by the Court or otherwise and you shall have to pay this additional price of the plot, if any, as determined by the department within 30 days from the date of demand." As would be seen from the contents of Condition No. 4 reproduced above, it does not speak about the liability to pay interest at a particular rate on additional price of the plot. The only condition, which provides for charging of interest and its rate, is Condition No. 8, which has been referred to above.

THE District Forum in its impugned order held that the plot in question was transferred to the name of the complainant vide allotment letter dated 22.3.1974 and the price of the plot including enhancement price was deposited by the complainant. Subsequently, the O.P.-HUDA raised demand of Rs. 71,800/- by imposing interest at different rates, which was also deposited under protest. THE complainant was now seeking its refund on the ground that HUDA was not entitled as per the terms and conditions of letter of allotment to charge interest at rates different than the one mentioned in Condition No. 8. It was with reference to this contention of the complainant that the District Forum referred to the contents of Condition No. 8 of terms and conditions of letter of allotment and upheld the contention of the complainant that neither HUDA Act, 1977 nor regulations made thereunder in the year 1978 nor any resolution of HUDA empowered it to charge compound interest from the allottees. The District Forum referred to the case of Kanta Devi Budhiraja v. State of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No. 15253 of 1988-PLR Vol. CXXV (2000-2), Punjab and Haryana High Court and Roochira Ceramics v. HUDA, Civil Appeal No. 4306 of 1998 - PLR Vol. CXXVIII (2001-02) rendered by the Hon''ble supreme Court wherein it was held that HUDA was entitled to charge interest at the stipulated rate as per letter of allotment. In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Roochira Ceramics (supra), the District Forum allowed interest @ 7% per annum as per Condition No. 8 of the letter of allotment. According to our considered opinion, the district Forum has rightly held that HUDA was not entitled to charge compound interest at different rates and further the interest had to be charged at the stipulated rate as per letter of allotment. The appeal filed by HUDA had thus no merit and it deserves to be dismissed.

SO far as the appeal of the complainant i.e., Appeal No. 266 of 2004 is concerned, it has no merit inasmuch as the interest was awarded from the date when the complainant himself prayed for the refund of the amount. The complainant was unable to show any clause, term or condition in the letter of allotment that he was entitled to claim refund from the date of deposit of the due amount. We thus find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal filed by the complainant is also devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

RESULTANTLY, both the appeals fail and are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeals dismissed.