PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs JAGDISH KAUR

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

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a house in Mohali from the original allottee of the petitioner. The total price of the house was Rs. 7,67,000/-. As per agreement entered between the parties possession of the house was to be delivered on payment of 25% of the sale price plus first instalment. This was paid by the original allottee. He took possession and then transferred the property to the respondent/complainant. As per agreement, if the balance amount was paid within 60 days of taking the possession then there was a provision of 10% rebate on the total costs. The complainant paid in all Rs. 5,53,070/- in lump sum. It is the case of the complainant that she really should have paid Rs. 5,09,115/- as per her calculations and asked for a refund from the petitioner. This not materialising, the complainant approached the District Forum, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that, the calculations supplied by the petitioner, were as per terms of the agreement. On an appeal filed by the complainant, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to refund the excess amount of Rs. 43,955/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of receipt till the date of payment. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find that the whole controversy revolves around the money payable by the complainant to the petitioner. There is no dispute that allotment letter is dated 21.8.1998. As per the allotment letter, 25% of the total amount of Rs. 7,67,000/- was to be paid before taking over the possession. There is no dispute that 25% of the total amount worked out to Rs. 1,91,750/- whereas the amount paid was Rs. 1,03,000/-. The choice for the complainant-purchaser was to pay the whole of balance amount within 60 days of the issue of allotment letter and get 10% rebate under Clause 7(2) of the agreement or pay instalments @ Rs. 9,567/- per month. Clause 9 stipulated that in case of delay in payment of instalment interest was leviable @ 15% p.m. of 2% p.m. if delay in paymentwas to exceed one year. In the instant case admittedly payment in lump sum was not paid within sixty days of the letter of allotment. It was paid, but with a further delay of 58 days. As per the terms of agreement monthly instalment was due in August and from there onwards on 10th of following months. As per the payment chart on record we see two things, one that the petitioner has levied interest on the delayed payment from August, 1998 to 10.12.1998, but what we find unacceptable is that interest amount is far in excess of the interest @ 1.5% p.m. on the instalment amount, which in this case was Rs. 9,567/-. By any reckoning interest shall at best be less than Rs. 150/- p.m. For four months delay, at best it will be Rs. 600/- in all, for delay in payment of first instalment and so on. The amounts deducted/adjusted by way of interest are not as per terms of agreement (Clause-9). Since this is the only point of dispute, we cannot accept the amounts of interest worked out by the petitioner. We also cannot agree with the State Commission to refund the whole amount. The interest payable by the complainant has to be in terms of the agreement @ 1.5% p.m. and only on the amount of instalment due. Petitioner is directed to rework interest liable on the above basis and for that period only and collect this from the complainant. Other entries are in order. The complainant shall be entitled to refund of the difference between Rs. 42,983/- and the amount of interest liable to be collected by the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to refund this amount alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of the amount from the complainant till the date of payment. Only to this extent petition is allowed and order of the State Commission is modified in above terms. Parties to bear their own cost. Revision Petition Partly allowed.