BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MONIKA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 851 of 2007, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (the opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 31.7.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar, with the following observations:

(2.) We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. Aggrieved by the demand of sum of Rs. 67,975 made by the petitioner-Authority herein vide their demand letter dated 26.7.2005, the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The complaint was resisted maintaining that the demand raised by the petitioner-Authority was strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the parties. The District Forum however, partly allowed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 26,942.16 to the petitioner-Authority towards the interest for the delayed payment of instalments within one month from the date of the communication of the said order. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order filed the appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission firstly on the ground that it has given no reasons for dismissing the appeal and secondly that the observations made by the State Commission were not called for as the petitioner was within its right to assail the order of the District Forum, which in the opinion of the petitioner authority was not justified. On the other hand Counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the directions given by the District Forum, the respondent has already deposited a sum of Rs. 27,000 with the petitioner-Authority, which in his opinion was the amount of interest which the petitioner-Authority could not have charged from the complainant on account of delay-default in payment of some of the instalments. He also submits that even if there is any mistake in the calculation of the interest, the respondent is ready to pay the balance amount if the interest on the default instalment is calculated @ 18.5% (simple interest and not the penal interest) in terms of Clause 6 of the agreement dated 17.6.1996 executed between the parties. We also think that this is the only solution of the dispute because the petitioner cannot charge any penal interest from the respondent as the agreement between the parties, provide only for charging of simple interest @ 18.5% and not the penal interest.