HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs BAL KISHAN

CHALLENGE in these proceedings is to the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission '') in FA No. 1580/2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 29.6.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, whereby the appellant/opposite party HUDA found deficient in service for charging interest @ 18% p.a. instead of @ 10% p.a. on the instalment in respect of a plot of land, i.e., SCF No. 72, Sector 7, Panchkula. It appears that the appeal before the State Commission was filed after 95 days delay along with application for condonation of delay but the State Commission refused to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the appellant and declined to condone the delay and, therefore, dismissed the application. Despite that, the State Commission proceeded to decide the appeal on merits also and examined the question as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the District Forum was legally correct and answered the sane in affirmative and thereby, dismissed the appeal on both counts, i.e., on the ground of limitation as well as on merits and upheld the findings and order passed by the District Forum.

WE have heard Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate Counsel representing the HUDA but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent/complainant as he remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice through registered AD post and respondent having been remitted a sum of Rs. 5,000 to meet the travel and allied expenses in connection with the present proceedings. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter on the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant was about the rate of interest which could be levied and charged by the petitioner HUDA on the failure of the complainant to make the payment of the stipulated instalments in the prescribed time-frame. There being no dispute about the complainant having defaulted in making the payment of the instalments as per the time schedule. It appears that going by the stipulation contained in the letter of allotment, the Fora below took the view that no interest exceeding 10% p.a. could be charged by the petitioner HUDA even for the period during which the payment of instalment was delayed by the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint directing the HUDA as under: "I. To recalculate the entire amount claimed and paid by the complainant keeping in mind that opposite parties were entitled to charge 10% p.a. simple interest on due payments of instalments and interest at the rate not exceeding current rate of interest at the time of its payment on delayed payments of instalments. Such a computation is to be completed within one month from the date of receipt of this order and be intimated to the complainant by registered post. II. Since the entire amount demanded by the opposite parties had been stated to be deposited by the complainant, any amount which is in excess of the amount to be computed on the basis of this order shall be refunded to the complainant within two weeks of such computation. "

THE State Commission agreed with the said finding of the District Forum by observing as under: "Even on merit, it is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have charged interest from him @ 18% p.a. which is beyond the terms of the allotment letter wherein 10% interest has been prescribed. It has been settled in catena of judgments that the HUDA cannot charge interest on the delayed payment beyond the terms of the agreement which is the allotment letter in the instant case. Thus, in absence of any agreement the action of the opposite parties for charging 18% interest cannot be allowed to sustain and therefore, the District Forum was justified in allowing the complaint for issuing direction to the opposite parties to recalculate the amount payable by the complainant by charging simple interest @ 10% p.a. and, thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. "

COUNSEL for the petitioner would assail the impugned orders passed by the Fora below on the ground that both the Fora below have erred in taking the view which they have taken, i.e., the interest @10% only was payable in terms of the allotment letter. She contends that the stipulation of payment of interest @ 10% p.a. is relevant only to compute the amount of EMIs or periodic instalments and could not be applied in regard to the defaulted period of payment of the instalments. She submits that this question was addressed by the petitioner and a Policy decision was taken by it to charge interest @18% p.a. from the allottees of the plot who defaulted in making the payment of instalments as per the schedule fixed for payment. In this connection she has invited our attention to a letter / circular No. HUDA. Acts. So-I-2000-24564 dated 22.9.2000, (copy at page 81 of the paper-book), which we would like to extract herein below for facility of reference: "HUDA Acts. SO-I-200024564 Dated 22.9.2000 To 1. All the Administrators, HUDA in the State 2. All the Estate Officers, HUDA in the State, Ambala Sub: Policy regarding charging of interest on delayed payment. Please refer to the subject cited above. The Authority in its 79th meeting held on 29.8.2002 has decided to charge simple interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment of instalments and simple interest @ 15% P.A. on delayed payments of enhanced compensation prospec-tively, i.e., from 1.9.2000 on the outstanding dues worked out as on 31.11.2000. The outstanding dues as on 31.8.2000 may be segregated under the head principal and interest separately. The payment made after 31.8.2000 may be first adjusted against interest. In case of delay in payments. After 31.8.2000, the interest on rates stated above may be calculated and charged only on the outstanding amount of principal till its receipt. You are required to take further necessary action accordingly. Accounts Officer, For Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula "

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant as per his own showing failed to make timely payment of instalments after depositing the initial amount had rendered himself liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. going by the above referred circular. This plea was taken by the petitioner HUDA in their written version before the Fora below but has been overlooked while considering the matter. Going by the policy decision of HUDA reflected in the above referred circular, which cannot possibly be the subject matter of challenge before a Consumer Fora, we must hold that the complainant had been rightly charged interest @ 18% p.a. for the period of default in making the payment of the due instalments. This being the position, the petitioner HUDA could not have been held guilty of any deficiency in service and no direction could be given for the refund of the amount received in excess of the amount of 10% interest to the complainant.

FOR the above stated reasons, we allow the revision petition and set aside the findings and orders of the Fora below and as a consequence dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout. Revision Petition allowed.