P.P.MONGA vs SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BY the above petitions under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner has sought implementation of the order of this Commission dated 6th August, 1992 and for punishment of the respondent-contemner.

IN the complaint, the petitioner has challenged the letter of the Shimla Development Authority (To be short Authority) dated 26.6.1990 whereby the balance amount of Rs. 75,942/- on account of enhancement/escalation price of plot was asked to be paid within 90 days from the date of issue of the letter. The Commission, no doubt, has upheld the enhanced price and the balance which is payable by the petitioner on this account but has awarded interest @ 18% per annum to him on the amount deposited by him as per directions of the judgment. This case was decided by the Commission by following the case of Bhag Singh Sain v. Shimla Development Authority on 5.8.1992 and the time for the payment of the balance amount was implicitly extended from the date of the order of the Commission. It is not disputed that the balance amount of enhanced price to be paid vide Authority letter dated 26.6.1990 was deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period.

The petitioner has alleged the non implementation of the order on three counts. Firstly, according to him the balance amount has been permitted to be deposited by the Commission itself within stipulated period which admittedly has been deposited by the petitioner. Therefore, no interest of Rs. 20,549/- can be charged on the enhanced amount as referred to at Serial No. 6 of the letter of the Authority dated 1.3.1993. Secondly, the matter of the escalation of price already stands adjudicated by this State Commission and, therefore, the escalation on account of enhanced price for payment of Rs. 50,855/- be cause of land acquisition proceedings now demanded by the Authority vide their letter dated 11.8.1993 is in clear violation of the directions and observations of the order.

THIRDLY the balance amount of interest of Rs. 20.549/- at serial number 6 in the Shimla Development Authority''s letter dated 1.3.1993, has been adjusted as ground rent upto 32nd years and part of 33rd years, which is in violation of the order of this Commission. The first two points are squarely covered by our judgment in Execution Petition No. 78 of 1993 (Bhag Singh Sam v. K.K. Mahajan, C.E.O., SDA) decided on . As regards the first point, we have held that it goes without saying that the Authority can charge interest only if there is a delayed payment. When the amount undisputedly has been paid by the petitioner within the stipulated period, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there has been delay in making the payment of the balance amount and hence in these circumstances the charging of interest on the balance amount does not arise.

IN Bhag Singh Sain''s case, supra, which covers second point as well. We have held that the matter of enhancement of compensation on account of land acquisition proceedings was not a subject matter of the complaint and is a later development. Such issue has not been adjudicated by the Commission and, therefore, such observations do not bind the parties. Further in the Hire-Purchase Tenancy Agreement, the petitioner accepted that in the event of enhancement of land compensation, such determination by the Court shall be final. Furthermore the allottees in the Self Financing Scheme have to bear the escalation due to enhancement of compensation under Land Acquisition Act. The third point raised by the petitioner also has a good deal of force. According to Clause 5 of the lease deed, the ground rent shall be payable by him to the Shimla Development Authority in advance automatically and regularly every year on or before 9th of January. It is apparent from the terms of lease deed that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the ground rent in advance automatically and regularly every year on or before 9th of January. Therefore in normal course to our mind, adjustment of ground rent for 32nd year and part of 33rd year is illegal and against the terms of the lease deed. However, we notice that the decision in this case is based upon the decision of Bhag Singh Sain, supra, where it has been observed that the excess amount of interest if any can be adjusted against future liability relating to the charges in the matter of ground rent etc.

IN view of such observations, no doubt, Shimla Development Authority could adjust the excess of interest if any against the future ground rent etc. But at the same time, it may be noticed that the Shimla Development Authority exercising such power must not act arbitrarily but must act reasonably. Therefore, we are prima facie of the opinion that the balance amount of interest adjusted against the ground rent of next 32 years is not only un-reasonable but arbitrary and such a decision of the authority is required to be re- considered. We have no doubt in our mind that the authority concerned will reconsider the matter particularly having regard to Clause 5 of terms of the lease deed aforementioned.

IN view of the foregoing, we direct the Shimla Development Authority (Now H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran) not to charge interest of Rs. 20,549/- mentioned at Sr. No. 6 of the letter of the Authority dated 1.3.1993, Annexure-C 4, on the revised cost. Further after re-consideration of the adjustment of interest against the ground rent, if the Shimla Development Authority (HPNVP) comes to the conclusion that the ground rent cannot be adjusted for such a long period against the interest which accrued to the complainant, they are directed to give credit of consequent excessive amount of interest so adjusted to the petitioner against his account. The liability of the petitioner to pay the balance amount, if any, stands consequently reduced. If it is found that die whole amount has been paid by the petitioner and no balance is outstanding against him, the Authority is directed to refund the aforementioned amount of interest to the petitioner within 15 days. If the amount is not paid as directed, the petitioner shall be entitled to further interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the order till actual payment. Next question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent-contemner has committed any contempt and is punishable under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. We have given due consideration to this aspect of the matter and are of the opinion that the respondent Authority has only mis-interpreted the order by charging interest as aforementioned but has acted bona fide and, therefore, no contempt is made out and consequently they are not liable to any punishment. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition stands disposed of.