K.C. SHARMA Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the Order dtd. 17/12/2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter to be referred as 'the State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint No.370 of 2017, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was disposed of with the following observations:

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the Appellant are that that a residential plot No. 113, Sector-43, Gurugram was allotted to him by EO, HUDA on 31/5/2002 at a cost of Rs.9,20,330,.00 which was later made a preferential Plot No. 113-P. The total price including the Increased area cost and the preferential cost was paid by the Appellant. The Estate Officer-II HUDA issued two demand letters for payment of enhancement price of the plot as under:

(3.) Perusal of the statement of accounts dtd. 13/7/2015, received by the Appellant on 20/7/2015 revealed that in both the demand letters, HUDA had charged interest from the effective date shown in the demand letter i.e. 13/2/2012, instead of date of issue of the notices, after clubbing the amount of both the demands issued on different dates and making installments for different period on his own without any request from the Appellant seeking payment in installments. The total amount of both the demands received by the Appellant comes to Rs.22,82,737..00 Whereas, the total shown by HUDA up to 23/12/2015 comes to Rs.23,06,762.00, which is more than Rs.24,025.00 for which no demand notice was received. At the end of the statement a principal amount of Rs.47,759.00 was shown as pending as on 23/12/2015, which is incorrect. The enhancement cost amount of both the demands dtd. 2/4/2012 and 14/12/2012 paid by the Appellant with interest was not adjusted on the respective dates of payments and adjusted the same in installments from 21/1/2013 to 23/12/2015 by showing that he was in credit of Rs.19,16,370.00in on 11/1/2013, which is not correct. Had HUDA adjusted the payment made by the Appellant on the respective dates of payments, there would have been NIL payment balance. HUDA adopted illegal ways to earn interest by manipulating the accounts for earning interest. He is not liable to any outstanding amount, in the absence of any demand notice. The second issue is of extension fee, as stated below: