H U D A Vs. UJJAWAL CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, HUDA against the order of the State Commission only partly accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant got a shop site in an auction held on 27.3.1989 againt the bid money of Rs. 1,49,600/- which have been paid in instalments. When the petitioner did not approve the site plan, the complainant moved the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to approve the site plan, not to charge interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of instalments, refund extension fee and pay interest @ 15% to the complainant on the amount deposited by him from the date of deposits to 18.11.1997 i.e. the date of handing over the possession. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the State Commission reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 12% p.a. as also the interest amount to be given was to be computed from 2 years after the deposits of instalments by the complainant. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed by HUDA.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the HUDA that it is admitted position that instalments 3-7 were deposited late and as per HUDA policy they are entitled to charge interest for late payment of instalments. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that only paper possession was given on 24.11.1992, actual possession was given on 18.11.1997 as the site was not developed. The complainant could not construct on the auctioned plot. Since they were waiting for completion of development work, hence the delay in start of construction work on site. They cannot be expected to keep paying while there is no development on the site. Order of the lower Forums are correct and need to be maintained.