Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President and B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Appellant
Versus
BANARSI DASS SHARMA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1052 of 2010
Decided on : 22-07-2011
Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. A.K. Singal, Advocate, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Extension Fee - Consumer Protection - HUDA v. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479, Punjab Urban Planning and Devp. Authority and Anr. v. Prem Singh Mann, 2008 (2) CPC 247, Lekh Raj Mehta and Others v. HUDA and Another - The court discussed the legality of imposing extension fee and compounding fee under the Consumer Protection Act, citing HUDA v. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479, and held that the extension fee cannot be questioned under the Consumer Protection Act. The impugned order with respect to setting aside the extension fee demanded from the complainant and deposited by him was set aside. The court also addressed the issue of charging interest on the price of excess area of the plot, ruling that the opposite party shall charge interest on the price of excess area at the rate prescribed in the allotment letter w.e.f. 27.2.2009 and not from the date of allotment letter.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was allotted an alternative plot due to litigation, deposited money for the plot, and was later informed about the excess area of the plot. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking a refund of extension fee, interest, and compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order with respect to the extension fee and ruled that the opposite party shall charge interest on the price of excess area at the rate prescribed in the allotment letter w.e.f. 27.2.2009 and not from the date of allotment letter. The court also maintained the order for granting litigation expenses to the complainant.
Issues: Extension fee under the Consumer Protection Act, charging interest on the price of excess area of the plot
Ratio Decidendi: The extension fee cannot be questioned under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party can charge interest on the price of excess area at the rate prescribed in the allotment letter w.e.f. 27.2.2009 and not from the date of allotment letter.
Final Decision: The impugned order was modified, setting aside the extension fee and ruling on the charging of interest on the price of excess area of the plot. The appeal was disposed of, and the statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.4.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat in complaint No. 119/2009 whereby the opposite party (appellant herein) has been held deficient for charging extension fee and interest on the price of excess area of plot allotted to the respondent-complainant. The observations made by the District Forum are as under:
"4. ..Hence, charging of extension fee by OP from the complainant is also unjustified. OP has admitted that the complainant has deposited Rs. 69,000 with OP. In view of the above observation, it is well proved that as information with regard to the additional area of the plot was given to the complainant first time on 27.2.2009, so charging of any extension fee from him for the period prior to 27.2.2009 so charging of any extension fee from him for the period prior to 27.2.2009 is unjustified and charging of this illegal amount from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. OP cannot charge the interest of Rs. 67,567 from the complainant on the price of the additional area prior to 27.2.2009 when first time the complainant was informed with regard to the additional area and further OP is not entitled to charge extension fee of Rs. 15,770.
5. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with the direction to OP to refund/adjust the amount of Rs. 69,000 paid by the complainant as extension fee with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. from 22.5.2008 till its realization towards the amount if any due towards the complainant. OP is further directed not to recover the amount of Rs. 67,567 as interest on the price of the additional area and Rs. 15,770 as extension fee from the complainant. Cost of litigation to the sum of Rs. 2,200 is also allowed to the complainant to be paid by OP. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of announcement of this order."
2. Undisputed facts of the present case as can be gathered from the record are that the complainant was allotted plot No. 7-P in Sector 13-17, Urban Estate, Panipat vide allotment letter No. 6402 dated 22.9.1993. As the plot was found under litigation, the complainant was allotted an alternative plot No. 1882-P in the same sector vide letter No. 6704 dated 23.6.1999. The complainant deposited Rs. 2,63,028 towards the price of the plot with the opposite party in instalments and also deposited Rs. 59,901 on account of enhancement in the price of the plot. The opposite party demanded Rs. 69,000 as extension fee due to non-construction on the plot which was also deposited by the complainant on 22.5.2008. vide letter No. 4561 dated 27.2.2009 the opposite party informed the complainant that the area of the alternative plot was 246.40 sq. mtrs instead of 209 sq. mtrs for which the opposite party demanded Rs. 1,12,700 from the complainant as enhanced area price along with interest and extension fee. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he was never informed by the opposite party about excess area of his plot prior to the letter dated 27.2.2009 and as the measurement of the plot was not done by the opposite party, the complainant could not raise construction. Thus, alleging it as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 69,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 22.5.2008 till its realization and not to recover the amount of Rs. 67,567 as interest on 15,770 from the complainant. The complainant also sought compensation of Rs. 25,000 for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 11,000 as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement, the opposite party justified the demand of extension fee as well as the price of the excess area of the plot, along with interest
