Sky Pak Couriers P Ltd vs Loyal Machine Works Ltd

IN this appeal filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, the order of the learned District Forum, Gurgaon has been challenged on the ground, that the District Forum should not have restrained the HUDA from charging interest on the additional amount of instalments, which by mistake could not be charged earlier.

COMPLAINANT Surender Kumar Yadav was allotted a 10 marla residential plot No. 397P in Sector 5, Gurgaon on 26th of February, 1990. At that time, the total cost was assessed as Rs. 2,61,811/ - and on that basis an amount of Rs. 41,651.75/ - was deposited by the complainant on 21st of March, 1990. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 29,751.25/ - was demanded on 20th of February, 1991 being first yearly instalment, which was also paid on 25th of February, 1991 and in the same manner second and third instalments were also paid on 27th of February, 1992 and 2nd of March, 1993. Fourth instalment amounting to Rs. 25,726/ - was also paid on 2nd of March, 1994. However, therefore, the complainant received a communication from the HUDA that instead of Rs. 29,751.25/ - the correct amount of instalment should have been Rs. 32,736.40/ -, which the complainant should pay being the balance amount alongwith an interest of Rs. 5,753.15/ -. The complainant thereupon approached the District Forum contesting the recovery of interest as mistake, if any, in calculating the amount of instalment was on the part of the HUDA and could not be attributed to the complainant.

In reply to the notice, the HUDA filed its written statement, wherein it was pleaded that as full amount of the plot had been mentioned in the allotment letter itself and after making the initial deposit as remaining amount had to be paid in four equal instalments, the complainant should have calculated the amount of instalments and paid on the basis thereof. The learned District Forum did not find any merit in the plea made by the opposite party and allowed the complaint with the direction that the balance amount of the total price of the plot could certainly be charged from the complainant but without any interest thereon as the complainant was not at fault.

IN appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the aforesaid submissions made before the District Forum and has contended with considerable vehemence that even if under a mistaken belief the amount of instalments was not correctly charged, the appellant -HUDA is still entitled to charge the interest on the balance amount. We do not agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. If the complainant had been asked to deposit the enhanced amount of instalment in the very first instalment, he would have paid the same at that very time as he had been paying all other instalments regularly, but if there had been a mistake on the part of the appellant -HUDA in calculating the amount of instalment, at the most they can recover balance amount from the complainant now. But certainly, it would be unfair and unjust to burden the complainant with payment of interest on the balance amount, which the appellant -HUDA should have demanded earlier, but could not do so due to their own mistake. Therefore, the appeal is wholly devoid of force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.