Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President;
Mr. Banarsi Das & Mr. Shakuntla Yadav, Members
HUDA (AMBALA) & ANR.—Appellants
versus
SHASHI BANSAL—Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 48 and 52 to 58 of 2006—Decided on 8.2.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.D. Bedi, Advocate.
The court established that where the agreement does not provide for charging of compound interest, it cannot be charged, and the period of limitation for filing an appeal commences from the date on which the copy of the order is ready and made available.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Illegal Demand - Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 - 17(1) of the Act, 1977 - Simple Interest - Compound Interest
Fact of the Case:
The complainants were allotted plots by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and were asked to pay enhanced prices and compound interest. The complainants sought direction to withdraw the illegal demand and recalculate the amount on simple interest basis. The District Forum accepted the complaints and issued directions in favor of the complainants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties were not entitled to charge compound interest on delayed payments and that the allotment letters only imposed the liability to pay simple interest for the delayed period. The court also found that the impugned order was duly signed and dated, and there was no violation of the rules.
Issues: Dispute over charging of compound interest, compliance with the rules regarding order communication
Ratio Decidendi: Where the agreement does not provide for charging of compound interest, it cannot be charged. The period of limitation for filing an appeal commences from the date on which the copy of the order is ready and made available.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed as there was no merit in the claims made by the appellants.
Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President—This order shall dispose of above mentioned five appeals as they have arisen out of common order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala whereby while accepting the complaints of all the five complainants, following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite parties:
Complaint No. 365/04
(i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 2,75,994 and recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest.
(ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i).
Complaint No. 333/04
(i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 1,06,003 and recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest.
(ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i).
Complaint No. 367/04
(i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 58,140 and recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest.
(ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i).
Complaint No. 368/04
(i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 61,707 and recalculate the same on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest.
(ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i).
Complaint No. 369/04
(i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 98,162 and recalculate the same on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest.
(ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i).
(iii) To pay Rs. 500 to each complainant as compensation for harassment caused to the complainants.
(iv) To pay Rs. 200 as costs of proceedings to each complainant.”
2. In order to decide the appeals the facts of all the five complaints have to be noticed briefly. In case Complaint Case No. 366 of 2004, Shashi Bansal v. HUDA,
The facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 931 measuring 500 sq. yards located in Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City on a tentative price of Rs. 16,500 as per allotment letter No. 1K/931 E.O. 1627 dated 12.11.1974. 10% of the sale price was deposited with the application and the balance amount was paid in instalments to the opposite parties. The complainant paid instalments amount in time with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1977) came into force. Subsequent, thereto, demand notices were received by the complainant wherein the opposite parties directed the complainant to pay the enhanced price of the said plot. The complainant paid the additional price of land on account of enhanced compensation. Thereafter, the complainant in order to get the conveyance deed executed in his favour in respect of the said plot approached the opposite parties as per letter dated 19.7.2001 to inform her about the outstanding dues upto 31.7.2001, along with statement of account. In reply, the opposite parties as per letters dated 24.9.2001, and 17.5.2004 informed the complainant that a sum of Rs. 1,06,003 was outstanding towards the plot in question but the statement of account was not furnished to her. The complainant thereafter gathered information from the office of the opposite parties that compound interest had been charged on the enhanced amount. Terming the demand as illegal, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs. 1,06,003 illegally made from her and to recalculate the amount due to the complainant on simple rate of interest; to furnish the year-wise statement to her; to execute the conveyance-deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the complainant after deposit of the amount legally paid by her and to pay Rs. 3,000 as costs of proceedings.
In case Complaint Case
