ORDER

AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.), MEMBER

1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.370 of 2017, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was disposed of with the following observations:

“Since there is a very small amount is involved, the HUDA authorities would not press the complainant to deposit the amount as the same is approximately around Rs. 10,000/- and more over the complainant was senior citizen aged 76 years old and was continuously visiting the HUDA office, which is clear harassment to the complainant. With these observations, the complaint is accordingly stands disposed off”.

2.      Brief facts of the case as per the Appellant are that that a residential plot No. 113, Sector-43, Gurugram was allotted to him by EO, HUDA on 31.05.2002 at a cost of Rs.9,20,330, which was later made a preferential Plot No. 113-P. The total price including the Increased area cost and the preferential cost was paid by the Appellant. The Estate Officer-II HUDA issued two demand letters for payment of enhancement price of the plot as under:

(i)  Memo No. Z0002/E0018/UE 029/DELET/0000006727/5260 dated 02.04.2012 for Rs.12,00,031/- @ Rs.6201.71 per Sq Mt.

(ii) Memo No. Z0002/B0018/UE029/DELET/0000005474/14056 dated 14-12-2012 for Rs.1082706/- @ Rs.5595.38 per Sq Mt.

(iii)  In para 3, of both demand letters, it was mentioned that the payment can be made within 30 days from the date of the letters, failing which interest @15% p.a will be charged from the date of issue of the letter till payment. However, payment can also be made in installments with interest. Details of the payments are as under:

 3.     Perusal of the statement of accounts dated 13.07.2015, received by the Appellant on 20.07.2015 revealed that in both the demand letters, HUDA had charged interest from the effective date shown in the demand letter i.e. 13.02.2012, instead of date of issue of the notices, after clubbing the amount of both the demands issued on different dates and making installments for different period on his own without any request from the Appellant seeking payment in installments. The total amount of both the demands received by the Appellant comes to Rs. 22,82,737. Whereas, the total shown by HUDA up to 23.12.2015 comes to Rs. 23,06,762/-, which is more than Rs. 24,025/- for which no demand notice was received. At the end of the statement a principal amount of Rs.47,759/- was shown as pending as on 23.12.2015, which is incorrect. The enhancement cost amount of both the demands dated 02.04.2012 and 14.12.2012 paid by the Appellant with interest was not adjusted on the respective dates of payments and adjusted the same in installments from 21-1-2013 to 23-12-2015 by showing that he was in credit of Rs.19,16,370/-in on 11-01-2013, which is not correct. Had HUDA adjusted the payment made by the Appellant on the respective dates of payments, there would have been NIL payment balance. HUDA adopted illegal ways to earn interest by manipulating the accounts for earning interest. He is not liable to any outstanding amount, in the absence of any demand notice. The second issue is of extension fee, as stated below:

(i)  As per the statement of account issued, there is "NIL" balance of extension fees and service tax pending into their records up to the year 2012.

(ii) HUDA revised the dates of extension fees vide letter No. 18221-42 dated 12.04.2013 that the new rates are applicable from the date of issue of the letter. Allottees who paid before the letter was issued will not be required to pay difference. He had already paid the extension fees on 04.01.2013 at the old rates. However, HUDA demanded difference in the amount