KRISHAN LAL BATRA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 8.2.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission').

(2.) Brief facts are that plot no. 548, Sec-7A/City was allotted to the petitioner/complainant, vide memo dated 4.10.1974 for consideration on terms and conditions of the allotment letter issued by respondent/o.p. with the direction to deposit the 15% of tentative price within 30 days of the allotment letter. Petitioner duly paid the same within time. Balance was to be paid in 6 installments which petitioner had duly paid. Since, petitioner wanted to raise loan from the bank so he made request to the respondent to intimate him outstanding dues against the plot in question. Respondent vide letter no.6864 dated 4.7.2005, intimated that an amount of Rs.2,30,470/- is due upto 31.7.2005. It was also revealed that compound rate of interest has been charged as the contractual rate on the outstanding amount for the period of default. Petitioner pointed out that respondent is not entitled to charge compound interest. Respondent did not give any reply. Thus, it caused great harassment to the petitioner. It also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Having no other option, petitioner issued a legal notice upon respondent, but to no avail. Hence the present complaint.

(3.) In its written statement, respondent admitted that plot in question was allotted to the petitioner at a tentative price of Rs.8,250/- as per terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. However, petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced price of the plot which he failed to deposit. Without depositing of due amount, Conveyance Deed of the plot in question cannot be executed. Further, complaint of the petitioner is bared by principle of resjudicata because earlier he had also filed a complaint on the same subject matter.