HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SHASHI DHAWAN

-PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that a plot bearing No. 494 was allotted to S/shri Madan Mohan, Om Prakash and Satya Prakash, sons of one Shri Wazir Chand by letter dated 9. 10. 1974. This plot was subsequently transferred in favour of the complainant Smt. Shashi Dhawan by letter dated 4. 7. 1986 on the original terms and conditions. It was the case of the complainant that she has been making the payments, and when in order to raise a loan for meeting the bulk of the requirements of funds required in connection with plot, she requested the petitioner for a ''no Due Certificate'' (NDC) as also the outstanding dues along with year-wise Statement of Account, she was informed by the petitioner vide letter dated 31. 7. 2002 that an amount of Rs. 1,02,536 is payable on account of enhanced price including the interest up to 31. 8. 2002. However, it was the case of the complainant that she came to know that the petitioner has worked out this amount on the basis of compound interest on the additional price, which cannot be done. It was in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and passed the following order: " (i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 1,02,536 and recalculated the amount due on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest at the prescribed rate for the delayed period of additional price. (ii) To issue No Due Certificate after the deposit of outstanding dues. (iii) To pay Rs. 500 as costs of proceedings. (iv) To pay Rs. 200 as compensation for harassment. "

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition.

We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The only issue before us is whether the petitioner is entitled to charge compound interest on the due amount or not? The learned State Commission has relied upon the order passed in the case of Gian Inder Sharma v. HUDA and Ors. , 2003 (1) PLR 140, in which it was held that HUDA is not entitled to charge compound interest for delayed payment. Our attention was also drawn towards judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA v. Raj Singh Rana, III (2008) CPJ 71 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 4436 of 2008 decided on 16. 7. 2008 in which it was held that HUDA can only charge simple interest. In view of the said finding and as per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as also in a number of cases by this Commission, we find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission directing the petitioner HUDA to charge only simple rate of interest on the outstanding amount.

IN the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this Revision Petition, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.