HUDA Vs. RAMESHWAR DASS JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Delay condoned.

(2.) The District Forum had directed to recalculate the entire amount payable by the complainant keeping in mind that only contractual simple rate of interest is to be charged and if compound interest has been charged then to refund the excess amount with 12% p.a. interest w.e.f. the date of deposit till payment and also awarded a sum of Rs.1,000 as cost of proceedings. This order was confirmed by the State Commission.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged before us that HUDA is entitled to charge 18% compound interest on delayed payment. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of allotment letter wherein there is a provision of charging 18% p.a. interest on delayed payment. However, it is nowhere stated that 18% interest is to be charged on compoundable basis. In fact the law is no longer res integra and we have already disposed of five revision petitions in HUDA v. Ashish Goel, R.P. No. 3996/2009; HUDA v. Shakuntla Gupta, R.P. No. 4038/2009; HUDA v. Narinder Kumar, R.P. No. 4039/2009; HUDA v. Narinder Kumar Gupta, R.P. No. 4040/2009; HUDA v. Shakuntla Gupta, R.P. No. 4041/2009 by order dated 8.7.2010 on similar issue.