HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BAL KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission') in FA No. 1580/2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 29.6.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkuia, where by the appellant/opposite party HUDA found deficient in service for charging interest @ 18% p.a. instead of @ 10% p.a. on the instalment in respect of a plot of land, i.e., SCF No. 72, Sector 7, Panchkula. It appears that the appeal before the State Commission was filed after 95 days delay along with application for condonation of delay but the State Commission refused to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the appellant and declined to condone the delay and, therefore, dismissed the application. Despite that, the State Commission proceeded to decide the appeal on merits also and examined the question as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the District Forum was legally correct and answered the sane in affirmative and there by, dismissed the appeal on both counts, i.e., on the ground of limitation as well as on merits and upheld the findings and order passed by the District Forum.

(2.) We have heard Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate Counsel representing the HUDA but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent/complainant as he remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice through registered AD post and respondent having been remitted a sum of Rs.5,000 to meet the travel and allied expenses in connection with the present proceedings. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter on the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant was about the rate of interest which could be levied and charged by the petitioner HUDA on the failure of the complainant to make the payment of the stipulated instalments in the prescribed time-frame. There being no dispute about the complainant having defaulted in making the payment of the instalments as per the time schedule. It appears that going by the stipulation contained in the letter of allotment, the Fora below took the view that no interest exceeding 10% p.a. could be charged by the petitioner HUDA even for the period during which the payment of instalment was delayed by the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint directing the HUDA as under: