The liability of the complainants to pay simple interest and not compound interest as per the allotment letters, and compliance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President—This order shall dispose of both the above mentioned appeals as they have arisen out of the common order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby both the above mentioned complaints were due titled after they were consolidated by the District Forum and tried together.

2. For adjudication of the controversy involved in these appeals firstly the facts of the Complaint Case No. 271 of 2005 titled as ‘Satish Chander Gujral v. HUDA’ have to be noticed. The facts of this case are that plot bearing No. 497 measuring 250 sq. yards located in Sector 7, Urban Estate, Ambala City was allotted to Shri Vijay Kumar as per memo No. EO (A) -79/2346 dated 13.5.1980 for a tentative price of Rs. 13,585. Thereafter, the said plot was tranferred to the complainant vide memo No. 398 dated 24.4.1981 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the original letter of allotment. The complainant paid the entire price of the plot to the original allottee before transfer was accepted in his name. The complainant appraoched the opposite party No. 2 for obtaining ‘No Due Certificate’ and in reply he was informed vide memo No. 9099 dated 14.9.2005 that a sum of Rs. 20,213 was outstanding against him as on 30.9.2005. However, the opposite parties had not furnished any details with regard to the demand made. The complainant came to know that compound interest had been charged from him on the enhanced price for the period of delay. Accordingly, he approached the opposite Parties to recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest payable by him on the delayed payment on the amount due from him but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Forced by these circumstances the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to withdraw the demand notice of Rs. 20,213 and to recalculate the amount due from him with simple interest instead of compound interest and to execute the conveyance deed after payment/deposit of the amount recalculated besides Rs. 5,000 compensation on account of mental torture/harassment and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

2. Coming to the facts of the complaint Case No. 270 of 2005 titled ‘Balwant Kumar v. HUDA’ a residential plot bearing No. 535 measuring 250 sq. yards located in Sector 7, Ambala City was allotted to Bharat Bhushan vide memo No. 1416 dated 4.5.1979 on a tentative price of Rs. 13,585. The said plot was re-allotted to the complainant vide memo No. 0041 dated 28.9.2001 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the original allotment letter. The complainant had paid the entire consideration to the original allottee and thereafter, he approached the opposite parties to transfer the plot in his favour and also requested the opposite parties to intimate the outstanding amount due from him. In reply he received memo No. 7870 dated 2.8.2005 whereby he was called upon to pay Rs. 1,15,343 toward the enhanced price and interest thereon up to 31.8.2005 but the details of the amount were not furnished. In order to ascertain the details of the demand made, he contacted the office of the opposite party No. 2 and came to know that compound interest had been charged against the contractual rate agreed between the parties in terms of the allotment letter. The complainant called upon the opposite parties to intimate the outstanding amount on the basis of simple interest but no reply was received by the complainant. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant instituted the present complaint challenging the demand made and further sought direction against the opposite parties to recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest and execute the conveyance-deed in his favour on payment of the balance amount; to pay Rs. 5,000 on account of mental torture and harassment and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

3. Both these complaints were contested by the opposite parties by filing separate