AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 379 wordsHEARD Counsel for the Petitioner. Delay condoned.
THE District Forum had directed to recalculate the entire amount payable by the complainant keeping in mind that only contractual simple rate of interest (emphasis added) is to be charged and if compound interest has been charged then to refund the excess amount with 12% p.a. interest w.e.f. the date of deposit till payment and also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000 as cost of proceedings. This order was confirmed by the State Commission.
LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has urged before us that HUDA is entitled to charge 18% compound interest on delayed payment. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of allotment letter wherein there is a provision of charging 18% p.a. interest on delayed payment. However, it is nowhere stated that 18% interest is to be charged on compoundable basis. In fact the law is no longer res integra and we have already disposed of five revision petitions in HUDA v. Ashish Goel, R.P. No. 3996/2009; HUDA v. Shakuntla Gupta, R.P. No. 4038/2009; HUDA v. Narinder Kumar, R.P. No. 4039/2009; HUDA v. Narinder Kumar Gupta, R.P. No. 4040/2009; HUDA v. Shakuntla Gupta, R.P. No. 4041/2009 by order dated 8.7.2010 on similar issue.
WE will also point out that second part of the order of the State Commission is also just, fair and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the possession has been delivered after a period of 7 years from the date of allotment.
IN our opinion, the complainant was compelled to approach/Consumer Fora resulting in unnecessary burden on consumer but also wastage of valuable time of Fora in frivolous litigation. In spite of order of Fora below to recalculate the amount on simple contractual rate of interest, HUDA has come before this Commission in revision.
WE do not find that any case has been made out by the Petitioner-HUDA for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Projection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited by the Petitioner in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Revision dismissed.