INDER PRABHA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of ours will dispose of two appeals i. e. Appeal Nos.39 and 55 both of 2001 as both arise from the common order dated 11.12.2000 in Complaint Case No.110 of 2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II ).

(2.) The contextual facts narrated briefly are given in the succeeding paragraphs. The plot No.242, Sector-1, Part-I, Shahbad Markanda, Distt. Kurukshetra (Haryana) was allotted to Mrs. Pushpa Kataria vide allotment letter dated 17.12.1986 and a copy of the allotment letter has been brought on record vide Annexure C-1. The same plot was re-allotted to appellant/complainant, Mrs. Inder Prabha, resident of Subhash Nagar, Ward No.14, near Punjab National Bank, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra vide re-allotment letter dated 11.3.1991 (Annexure C-2 ). As per the averments made, inter alia, the plot could not be constructed firstly due to a Nullah flowing very close to the area of the plot and it being situated on low level the dirty water from the Nullah gets accumulated in the plot of the appellant/complainant rendering it difficult to raise any construction. Further the appellant/complainant has averred that there is a cremation ground very near to her plot. Since the proximity of the house to the cremation ground is considered to be inauspicious as per popular Hindu belief which is another important factor due to which the appellant/complainant has not been able to construct her plot. The appellant/complainant has alleged that though she has made several visits to the office of respondents/o. Ps. namely, HUDA and Estate Office, HUDA apprising them about the difficulties faced by her in the construction of the plot on account of above stated factors but the respondents/o. Ps. have not taken any steps whatsoever to remove the above mentioned infirmities consequent to which the present complaint was filed.

(3.) The second main grievance of the appellant/complainant pertains to the total price charged by the respondents/o. Ps. The contention of the appellant/complainant is that in the statement of accounts furnished to the appellant, the outstanding amount of Rs.1,27,073/- was shown against her plot though as per her version the total consideration stands paid up by her. The appellant has alleged that while preparing the statement of accounts, certain facts, very material to her case, have been ignored by the respondents/o. Ps. The appellant has alleged that the compound interest @ 18% has been charged which actually should be simple interest @ 10% only as per Clause 6 of the allotment letter. Further, this slab of 18% compound interest has been charged on delayed instalments prior to handing over physical possession of the plot. To support her point the case of Aruna Luthra V/s. State of Haryana, 1997 2 PunLJ 1, whereby the law laid down by Hon'ble Court was to the effect that HUDA cannot charge interest @ exceeding 10% p. a. The same judgment of High Court has even been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as an SLP preferred by HUDA against the above mentioned judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So the appellant has stated that O. Ps. cannot charge interest at a rate higher than 10% that too, on the instalments deposited after offering the physical possession of the plot. The appellant has stated that the above rate of interest is discriminatory as other allottees are being charged @ 10% simple interest only and not compound interest @ 18% as is being levied in her case. The appellant has allegedly stated the same not only a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice but has termed it to be a contempt of Court and has prayed to get exceess amount charged refunded from the respondents/o. Ps.