HARIDWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Haridwar Development Authority against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2003 passed by District Forum, Haridwar, whereby the complaint of the opposite party was allowed and the appellant was directed not to charge interest of Rs.51,738/- vide notice dated 26.7.1999.

(2.) The complainant filed the complaint that he has booked a quarter under Lower Income Group category on 30.6.1990. On 13.9.1990 the appellant accepted the booking. The complainant is working in Telephone Department. He applied for loan but his loan was not sanctioned. He could not deposit the instalments in time. Therefore, on 13.7.1993, he applied that instalments should be refixed. On 20.7.1993, the appellant allowed the application of the complainant and fixed monthly instalment of Rs.3,000/- with a further direction to deposit Rs.15,000/- after each 6 months. It was agreed that the first instalment shall be paid on 30.8.1993 and the entire price of the house was fixed for Rs.1,42,000/-. The complainant gave his consent on 4.8.1993 and an agreement was entered into by the parties on 6.8.1993 fixing the price of the house as Rs.1,42,000/-. The complainant deposited this amount within time, but, after a lapse of about 4 years the complainant had got a notice that he has to further pay a sum of Rs.51,730/- by 20.8.1999 as interest for delayed payment. This is in contravention of the agreement dated 6.8.1993 and is unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service. When the appellant did not hear, the complainant filed the case before the Forum. The appellant contested the complaint on facts. The facts are admitted. However, it is the case of the appellant that there was delay in payment, therefore, the appellant was entitled to interest and, therefore, such a notice was issued.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The name of the appellant as is, this is a Development Authority. This is for the development of the urban area. This is not a private profit-making Company. It is for the welfare of the public at large and its primary object is and should be to render service to the people for their welfare and development. However, the facts of the present case reveal otherwise. It is true that earlier there was some delay in the payment of the instalments. This fact was also admitted by the complainant and this is why, he applied for refixation of instalments and the appellant agreed to this. On 6.8.1993 an agreement was entered into and by this date, delayed or prompt, whatsoever, the complainant has paid a handsome amount of Rs.46,500/-. In the agreement, itself, it is written that the purchaser has deposited a sum of Rs.46,500/- be treated as the first instalment in which registration fee and interest was included. A fresh agreement was entered thereafter and fresh instalments were fixed. There was nothing in this agreement that the earlier agreement shall also continue and shall remain operative and interest even after fresh agreement shall be charged. This agreement dated 6.8.1993 supersedes the earlier agreement and the price was fixed for Rs.1,42,000/- on this particular date out of which the deposit made by the complainant was adjusted. The earlier claim, if any, shall be deemed to have been waived and after this amount, nothing was agreed to be paid. The agreement, itself, speaks that the first party has agreed to transfer the property for Rs.1,42,000/- and the first party has already received a sum of Rs.46,500/-. Thus, where the question arises of any other dues like interest of the period before 6.8.1993.