Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President;
Mr. Banarsi Dass & Mrs. Shakuntla Yadav, Members
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Appellant
versus
ARJUN DASS POPLI—Respondent
First Appeal No. 366 of 2006—Decided on 25.4.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Dispute - Section 2(1) - 7, 10, 15 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1) and the applicability of the Act to the dispute. It also highlighted the interpretation of the terms of the allotment letter and the issue of charging compound interest versus simple interest. The court's decision was influenced by the legal principle that where a bilateral agreement speaks about the liability to pay interest, it has to be construed as simple interest and not compound interest.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was allotted a residential plot and was later demanded an enhanced compensation amount. The complainant sought a 'No Due Certificate' and compensation, which was contested by the opposite party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand for compound interest was not justified as there was no stipulation in the allotment letter for such charges. It also held that the dispute fell within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: The main issues were the demand for enhanced compensation, the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, and the nature of interest charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the dispute fell within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, and the opposite party could only charge simple interest for the delayed payment, not compound interest.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the District Forum's order in favor of the complainant.
Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite party:
“(A) That O.P. is entitled to charge simple interest at the rate mentioned in the notice Ex. O4 and Ex. O5 on the amount of enhanced compensation from the date of said notices till payment.
(B) That O.P. shall prepare a fresh statement of account in the light of directions given in (A) above and shall serve the same upon the complainant within a period of 15 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
(C) That the complainant shall deposit the amount so arrived at as per the revised statement of account as directed above within a period of 15 days of the receipt thereof. Thereafter the receipt of the amount from the complainant as per fresh statement of account, O.P. shall issue “no dues certificate” to him within a further period of 15 days thereof.
(D) That there shall be no order as to costs.”
2. In order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal few facts need to be noticed. The complainant was allotted residential plot bearing No. 390-P located in Sector 13-P, Extension, Karnal measuring 20.2.5 sq. mtrs, as per allotment letter No. E.O. (K)-77/7857 dated 10.10.1977 issued by the opposite party, on the tentative price of Rs. 13,320.47. The complainant had paid extra amount of Rs. 1,210.95 to the opposite party. The complainant had deposited the entire price of the plot. To the surprise of the complainant he received letter bearing memo No. 1376 dated 20.1.2003 wherein a demand of Rs. 69,300 was made from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the opposite party and came to know that only enhanced amount of Rs. 7,515 and Rs. 2,300 was payable by him which he was ready to pay and further requested the opposite party to issue “No Dues Certificate” in respect of the aforesaid plot, but no response was received by him from the opposite party. Subsequently thereto a sum of Rs. 27,034 was accepted by the opposite party from the complainant on the assurance that “No Due Certificate” would be sent to him within seven days but again no action was taken by the opposite party in this regard. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite party to issue “No Due Certificate” in respect of the plot in question. He also claimed Rs. 25,000 as compensation. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that as per letters dated 7.5.1981, 15.10.1986 and 13.1.1988 sums of Rs. 2,575.75, Rs. 2,575.15 and Rs. 2,300.80 were demanded from the complainant towards the first second and third enhancements respectively which amount the complainant failed to deposit for which notice dated 29.1.2003 was issued wherein demand of Rs. 69,300 was made from the complainant which the complainant was liable to pay within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. At the same time it was admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 27,034 with the opposite party on 13.8.2004 and in this manner balance amount of Rs. 45,156 was still to be paid by the complainant along with interest. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal as there was no deficiency of service on its part.
3. The District Forum on scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record accepted the complaint and issued necessary directions noticed above as per order dated 28.12.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel representing the appellant has been heard at length.
5. It is clear from the record that the demand of first enhanced compensation made from the side of the opposite party, has been complied
