HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.5.2002, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum', allowing the complaint and quashing the letter of offer of possession and the order dated 23.1.2001 passed by the OPs and thereby directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4,72,468.48 charged as interest, extension fee and penalty. The appeal was initially instituted before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana and was received by this Commission under the orders dated 27.3.2008 passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, the plots were advertised by the OPs/appellants and one of the terms and conditions of the allotment was proposed to be that either the full amount in lump sum would be paid without interest within 60 days from the date of allotment letter or in six equated annual instalments with interest @10% on unpaid amount. The complainant applied for allotment of plot, in view of which, the plot in question was allotted to him but in the allotment letter dated 3.10.1991, the interest was increased to 151/2% and the number of instalments were decreased from six to five. The complainant paid the initial amount and also paid some of the instalments. It was averred that on account of defaults in 3rd and the 4th instalments, OPs vide order dated 9.9.1999 (Annexure P -4) proceeded to resume the plot and also ordered forfeiture of 10% amount of the cost of the plot, against which, the complainant filed appeal before the Appellate Authority of HUDA and vide order dated 23.1.2001, the complainant was directed to deposit the entire outstanding amount including interest and penalty within two months. Subsequently, vide letter dated 19.2.2001 (Annexure P -6), OPs raised a demand of Rs.4,72,468.48. The grouse of the complainant was that no basic facilities in the area were provided by the OPs and the action of OPs in charging interest and penalty could not be sustained. As per the complainant, even no electric poles/transformers were installed in the area in question till 1996 as is clear from letter dated 19.6.1996 written by the Estate Officer, HUDA. As per him, he had already paid a sum of Rs. 4,90,438 to the OPs as against the price of the plot of Rs. 4,50,835.39 and had already raised construction. It was averred that the demand now created by the OPs to pay a further sum of Rs. 4,72,468.48 was patently illegal and unsustainable. Seeking refund of an amount of Rs. 4,72,468.48, which the complainant paid under threat of resumption of the plot and further seeking quashing of orders date 9.9.1999 and 23.1.2001 passed by the OPs, the complainant filed the present complaint before the learned District Forum.

(3.) OPS in their written reply submitted that the rate of interest was 15% % per annum on the balance 75% price of the plot, which was payable in five equal annual instalments and this had been specifically mentioned in the allotment letter No.5139 dated 10.4.1991.It was next pleaded that the rate of interest might be revised from time -to -time as per Industrial and HUDA Policy and rules and regulations framed thereunder. It was also stated that the complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the provisional letter of allotment and therefore, the final letter of allotment bearing No. 14158 dated 3.10.1991 was issued to the complainant. As per the OPs, order dated 23.1.2001 was passed after considering the submissions of the complainant. The averment of the complainant as regards the non -availability of basic facilities and electric poles, etc. was specifically denied. It was pleaded that the area had already been developed and the offer of possession had already been given to the complainant vide letter dated 3.10.1991, who obtained possession of the plot in question without any protest on 17.3.1992. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.