HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PANCHKULA vs Virender Kumar Jindal

HARYANA Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to the HUDA) has come up in appeal against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. It is necessary to narrate the facts which are relevant for resolving the controversy arising in this case.

BY a letter dated 6.12.1984 the complainant was allotted plot No. 319 in the Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. An amount of Rs. 27,627/ -, representing 25% of the total amount, was deposited within the stipulated period. According to the complainant, he was informed by the officials of the HUDA that the scheme of Mansa Devi Complex had fallen under dispute on account of certain reasons. Thereafter, complainant was informed in the year 1989 that the Mansa Devi Complex had been cleared with some modifications and the petitioner had been allotted plot No. 395 instead of 319 in Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex. The complainant had paid the remaining instalments. The HUDA by letter dated 5th October, 1992 demanded an amount of Rs. 54,712/ - with interest at the rate of 18% which was not the liability of the complainant. The case set up by the complainant was that as per Clause 6 of the letter of allotment the HUDA could not claim interest more than 10% per annum and that too from the date of offer of possession which in this case was 5.8.1991. However, he deposited the amount in order to save allotment. He approached the District Forum for the refund of the amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. It is needless to say that the petition was contested on behalf of the HUDA on the ground that the complainant did not pay in time the requisite instalment falling due on 6.12.1985, 6.12.1986 and 6.12.1987 The amount was deposited later on. The complainant was liable to pay interest for the delayed payments as per the policy guidelines issued by the Department from time to time in this regard. The demand of the HUDA was justified.

THE District Forum, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on the record, allowed the complaint and directed the HUDA to refund the excess amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of deposit till the date of refund. The District Forum observed that the allotment letter authorised the HUDA to claim interest only from the date of offer of possession of the plot to the complainant and not before that, and that too at the rate of 10% only. The letter R.X. dated 15th January, 1987 on which the HUDA placed reliance for charging interest at the rate 18% p.a. from the date of default of instalment was rejected on the ground that it ran counter to the spirit of the allotment of letter dated 6th of December, 1984 and even otherwise, Ex. RX made it crystal clear that it was enforceable prospectively and not retrospectively.

BEING dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, an appeal was filed by the HUDA before the State Commission The contention raised on behalf of the HUDA before the State Commission did not find favour with the State Commission and it resulted in dismissal of the appeal. That is how, the HUDA approached this Commission by way of filing this revision petition. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It was contended on behalf of the HUDA that the finding of the District Forum as well as the State Commission on the point of charging of interest by HUDA at the rate of 18% p.a. was not correct. The District Forum as well as the State Commission went wrong in not relying upon Ex. R.X. dated 15th January, 1987 which stipulated that the HUDA was entitled to charge interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the instalments which were not paid within the stipulated period. On this aspect of the matter, the State Commission has recorded the finding as under: "Regarding the period for which the interest has to be paid in such cases, the matter is fully covered by the decision of this Commission in First Appeal No. 251 of 1993. HUDA, Panchkula v. Anant Bir Singh dated 8th of September, 1993, wherein by referring to Clause 6 of the agreement entered into by the HUDA with the allottees it was held by this Commission that the HUDA could levy interest only from the date of possession and not earlier. Upholding the same Hon''ble Commission held that ''it is very clear from Clause 6 of the agreement entered into between the parties that the interest was payable by the complainant on the instalments payable by the complainant only w.e.f. the date on which possession of plot was offered by the HUDA''. This is the view that has been taken by the State Commission and we are in full agreement with the same."

The State Commission relied upon the view taken by this Commission. We see no reason to differ with the view already taken by this Commission. This contention is repelled.

IT was further con tended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Forum and the State Commission had permitted the HUDA to charge interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of offer of possession, whereas the District Forum directed to refund the excess amount to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18%. This was unreasonable and was not based on equity. It was also brought to our notice that the complainant had defaulted in making payments of the instalments of Rs. 13,813.80 Ps. each which had fallen due on 6.12.1985, 6.12.1986 and 6.12.1987. The HUDA could cancel the allotment by invoking the provisions of Clause 10 of the allotment letter but it had not done so. The complainant had himself committed defaults in making payments and was not entitled for any relief.

WE have considered this aspect. There is no doubt that the complainant did not pay the amount of the requisite instalments which fell due on 6.12.1985, 6.12.1986, 6.12.1987, but paid the amounts subsequently. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice will be met if we allow the complainant to charge interest at the rate of 12% on the amount which may be found refundable to him in terms of the order of the District Forum. As a result, we partly allow this revision petition and modify the order of the District Forum to the extent that the complainant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount which may become refundable to him in terms of the order of the District Forum. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition partly allowed.