HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Mahendra Pratap Singh

THIS is an appeal by Haridwar Development Authority against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2003 passed by District Forum, Haridwar, whereby the complaint of the opposite party was allowed and the appellant was directed not to charge interest of Rs. 51,738/- vide notice dated 26.7.1999.

THE complainant filed the complaint that he has booked a quarter under Lower Income Group category on 30.6.1990. On 13.9.1990 the appellant accepted the booking. THE complainant is working in Telephone Department. He applied for loan but his loan was not sanctioned. He could not deposit the instalments in time. THErefore, on 13.7.1993, he applied that instalments should be refixed. On 20.7.1993, the appellant allowed the application of the complainant and fixed monthly instalment of Rs. 3,000/- with a further direction to deposit Rs. 15,000/- after each 6 months. It was agreed that the first instalment shall be paid on 30.8.1993 and the entire price of the house was fixed for Rs. 1,42,000/-. THE complainant gave his consent on 4.8.1993 and an agreement was entered into by the parties on 6.8.1993 fixing the price of the house as Rs. 1,42,000/-. THE complainant deposited this amount within time, but, after a lapse of about 4 years the complainant had got a notice that he has to further pay a sum of Rs. 51,730/- by 20.8.1999 as interest for delayed payment. This is in contravention of the agreement dated 6.8.1993 and is unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service. When the appellant did not hear, the complainant filed the case before the Forum. THE appellant contested the complaint on facts. THE facts are admitted. However, it is the case of the appellant that there was delay in payment, therefore, the appellant was entitled to interest and, therefore, such a notice was issued. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The name of the appellant as is, this is a Development Authority. This is for the development of the urban area. This is not a private profit-making Company. It is for the welfare of the public at large and its primary object is and should be to render service to the people for their welfare and development. However, the facts of the present case reveal otherwise. It is true that earlier there was some delay in the payment of the instalments. This fact was also admitted by the complainant and this is why, he applied for refixation of instalments and the appellant agreed to this. On 6.8.1993 an agreement was entered into and by this date, delayed or prompt, whatsoever, the complainant has paid a handsome amount of Rs. 46,500/-. In the agreement, itself, it is written that the purchaser has deposited a sum of Rs. 46,500/- be treated as the first instalment in which registration fee and interest was included. A fresh agreement was entered thereafter and fresh instalments were fixed. There was nothing in this agreement that the earlier agreement shall also continue and shall remain operative and interest even after fresh agreement shall be charged. This agreement dated 6.8.1993 supersedes the earlier agreement and the price was fixed for Rs. 1,42,000/- on this particular date out of which the deposit made by the complainant was adjusted. The earlier claim, if any, shall be deemed to have been waived and after this amount, nothing was agreed to be paid. The agreement, itself, speaks that the first party has agreed to transfer the property for Rs. 1,42,000/- and the first party has already received a sum of Rs. 46,500/-. Thus, where the question arises of any other dues like interest of the period before 6.8.1993.

It is true that in the agreement dated 6.8.1993 as well, there is a provision that if there is delay in payment of any instalment, interest shall be charged. We have to see whether there was any delay. As said above, the delay before 6.8.1993 if any, stands waived by the fresh agreement. In this agreement, it was agreed that the first instalment shall be paid on 30.8.1993 and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as extra instalment on each 6 months. In the agreement, also, it was agreed that the entire instalments are to be paid within 4 years, first to start in the month of August, 1993 and the last instalment in May, 1997. The complainant paid the first instalment on 30.8.1993 and this was the instalment for the month of September. Each instalment was to be paid before 10th of each month. The instalment of October was paid on 5.10.1993. Thereafter on 5.11.1993 instalment was paid for November and on 7.12.1993 for December. On 30.12.1993 a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited which could have been deposited as per agreement in the month of February. Then the instalment of January was deposited on 10.1.1994 and in all subsequent months, the deposits were made within time. On 7.11.1994 the complainant deposited Rs. 8,000/- to cover future instalments as well. On 9.12.1994 he deposited Rs. 3,000/-, on 30.12.1994 he deposited Rs. 6,000/-, on 10.1.1995 he deposited Rs. 6,000/-, and by 8.5.1995 the entire instalments were paid. Nothing remained due against the complainant. Therefore, wherefrom these delays have been calculated by the appellant is not clear. There is no case of the appellant that there was any other dues except alleged interest after 8.5.1995.

ONE thing is very clear. ONE who seeks equity must do equity, one who seeks justice must do justice and one who claims interest must pay interest. The claimant was entitled to make payment till May, 1997, but, he completed his payment by May, 1995, itself. It means that what was due from May, 1995 to May, 1997 was paid long before. The appellant has nowhere given any rebate or interest to the claimant on this payment before due date. Then, why even without any delay, the appellant has started charging interest, is not clear. It is a mala fide claim and not a conduct of a welfare organisation or a Development Authority. The learned Counsel for the appellant was very much sore on the point that how the Consumer Forum can write that the claim for interest by the Development Authority is barred by time. He argued that such a case can be decided only by Civil Court. We fail to understand when the Forum can hold that a particular complaint is barred by time, why the Forum cannot hold that a particular defence is also barred by time or a particular claim by the defendant is also barred by time.

IT was also argued that the District Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide this case. There was a booking of a plot. The plot was purchased. There is housing construction and housing construction has also been added in the clause service by the amending Act No. 50 of 1993. The appellant should not forget the ruling of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1994 (1) CPR 569 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has not only given a lesson to the Development Authority of Lucknow, but all such Development Authorities which are doing development work or in the job of housing construction. A price has been fixed. The interest, if any, is to arise from that price only. If interest is not due and price is enhanced by way of demanding interest, necessarily, this is a consumer dispute and petition shall lie before the Consumer Forum. This appeal has got no force. The appeal has been dismissed with exemplary cost. IT is enough that no cost is awarded against the appellant. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.