H.U.D.A. vs UJJAWAL CHADHA

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, HUDA against the order of the State Commission only partly accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant got a shop site in an auction held on 27.3.1989 againt the bid money of Rs. 1,49,600/- which have been paid in instalments. When the petitioner did not approve the site plan, the complainant moved the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to approve the site plan, not to charge interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of instalments, refund extension fee and pay interest @ 15% to the complainant on the amount deposited by him from the date of deposits to 18.11.1997 i.e. the date of handing over the possession. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the State Commission reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 12% p.a. as also the interest amount to be given was to be computed from 2 years after the deposits of instalments by the complainant. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed by HUDA. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the HUDA that it is admitted position that instalments 3-7 were deposited late and as per HUDA policy they are entitled to charge interest for late payment of instalments. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that only paper possession was given on 24.11.1992, actual possession was given on 18.11.1997 as the site was not developed. The complainant could not construct on the auctioned plot. Since they were waiting for completion of development work, hence the delay in start of construction work on site. They cannot be expected to keep paying while there is no development on the site. Order of the lower Forums are correct and need to be maintained.

On perusal of the material on record and hearing the arguments, we see that it was a case of auction sale. So presumption is that the complainant would have seen the status of the plot before bidding. Whatever he did-he did so with his eyes open. For delay in handing over the possession as per our own judgments, the complainant is entitled to interest @ 18% from after two years of the date of respective deposits, but at the same time HUDA cannot be deprived of interest as per their policy for delayed payments. It is admitted position that there has been delay on the part of the complainant in depositing the instalments, which we cannot condone. It was an auction purchase-possession was offered on November, 1992. It is alleged that the site was not developed. There is nothing on record to show as to what were the terms of auction. Keeping in view the facts of the case order of the State Commission is only modified to the extent that HUDA will be entitled to charge interest as per their policy on the delayed period in depositing the instalments and rate of interest at which interest shall be payable by the petitioner to the complainant shall be 18% p.a. Rest of the order of the State Commission is maintained. No order on costs. Revision Petition disposed of.