HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/ Opposite Parties being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in (First Appeals No.1151 and 1152 of 2010) has filed the above noted revision petitions.

(2.) Since, facts in above noted revision petitions are common and same question of law is involved as such these revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) As per facts enumerated in (R.P.No.4509 of 2010), the facts of the case of the Respondent/Complainant he has purchased a plot No.792 Sector-7,Ambala City was originally allotted to Mrs. Nancy Chopra vide memo No. 1446 dated 4.5.1979 measuring 300 sq. mtrs and thereafter, the said plot was reallotted to the complainant vide memo No.11683 dated 9.5.1989. After clearance of all the dues, the conveyance deed was executed on 29.9.92 and so, the complainant stepped into the foot-steps of original allottee for all purposes. Since the complainant wanted to get the account/ payment, if any, due against the house in question settled for all times, so he approached the OP a number of times to supply him the detail of the account paid by the complainant against the house in question and the rate of interest charged thereon and to furnish the yearwise statements of account from the date of allotment till date so that the complainant can ascertain the correctness of the amount paid by the complainant and may check the accuracy of the amount but the OP miserably failed to concede the genuine request of the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that on 19.1.1993, the Estate Officer demanded Rs.2,732/- which the complainant paid on 26.5.1993. Notice for additional price was issued on 24.8.1994 and it was stated therein that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period then the allottee will pay interest for the period of default at the rate of 15% per annum. The complainant made an application to the OP on 13.10.2008 for issuing him the details on which it was informed that the complainant is still to pay Rs.187965/- as an additional price of the house in question but with regard to rate of interest, it was verb ally told that compound rate of interest has been calculated. Thus, under compelling circumstances, the complainant paid Rs. 45,000/- on 13.10.08, Rs.40,000/- on 15.10.2008, Rs.32,000/- on 16.10.08, Rs. 38,000/- on 17.10.08, totalling Rs. 1,55,000/-. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 26.3.2009 for recalculation of his account with regard to the house in question on the basis of simple interest and to return the excess amount if any, to the complainant but in vain. Hence, this complaint.