PRATAP KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. BSNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of above mentioned five appeals as they have arisen out of common order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala whereby while accepting the complaints of all the five complainants, following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite parties: complaint No.365/04 (i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.2,75,994 and recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest. (ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i ). Complaint No.333/04 (i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.1,06,003 and recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest. (ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i ). Complaint No.367/04 (i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.58,140 and recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest. (ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i ). Complaint No.368/04 (i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.61,707 and recalculate the same on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest. (ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i ). Complaint No.369/04 (i) To withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.98,162 and recalculate the same on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest. (ii) To execute the conveyance deed after clearing the outstanding dues in accordance with Clause (i ). (iii) To pay Rs.500 to each complainant as compensation for harassment caused to the complainants. (iv) To pay Rs.200 as costs of proceedings to each complainant. "

(2.) In order to decide the appeals the facts of all the five complaints have to be noticed briefly. In case Complaint Case No.366 of 2004, Shashi Bansal V/s. HUDA, the facts of the case are that the complainant was allotted plot No.931 measuring 500 sq. yards located in Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City on a tentative price of Rs.16,500 as per allotment letter No.1k/931 E. O.1627 dated 12.11.1974.10% of the sale price was deposited with the application and the balance amount was paid in instalments to the opposite parties. The complainant paid instalments amount in time with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1977) came into force. Subsequent, thereto, demand notices were received by the complainant wherein the opposite parties directed the complainant to pay the enhanced price of the said plot. The complainant paid the additional price of land on account of enhanced compensation. Thereafter, the complainant in order to get the conveyance deed executed in his favour in respect of the said plot approached the opposite parties as per letter dated 19.7.2001 to inform her about the outstanding dues upto 31.7.2001, along with statement of account. In reply, the opposite parties as per letters dated 24.9.2001, and 17.5.2004 informed the complainant that a sum of Rs.1,06,003 was outstanding towards the plot in question but the statement of account was not furnished to her. The complainant thereafter gathered information from the office of the opposite parties that compound interest had been charged on the enhanced amount. Terming the demand as illegal, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,06,003 illegally made from her and to recalculate the amount due to the complainant on simple rate of interest; to furnish the year-wise statement to her; to execute the conveyance-deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the complainant after deposit of the amount legally paid by her and to pay Rs.3,000 as costs of proceedings. In case Complaint Case Nos.365, 367, 368 and 369 of 2004: out of the remaining four complaints, three complaints were filed by Pawan Kumar in respect of plot Nos.294, 139 and 293 located in Sector 7, Urban Estate, Ambala City which were allotted to him on a tentative price of Rs.8970, Rs.7,750 and Rs.8,970 as per re-allotment letter Nos.3919 dated 31.3.1992, 1017 dated 1.2.1994 and 3916 dated 31.3.1992 respectively. In complaint filed by Subhash Chander, he was allotted plot No.904 located in Sector 7, Ambala City as per letter No.14m/904/e. O.1686 dated 22.11.1974 on a tentative price of Rs.12,250. In all these four complaint cases, the allottees had paid the entire price of the respective plots including the additional price in respect of the enhanced compensation. Thereafter, the opposite parties also demanded the amounts noticed hereinafter: in F. A. No.52 Rs.61,707 and Rs.72,005 as per letter dated 21.9.2001 and 17.5.2004 in respect of plot No.294, in F. AA. No.53 Rs.90,010 and Rs.1,13,602 as per letters dated 11.9.2001 and 17.5.2004 in respect of plot No.139, in F. A. No.54 Rs.58,140 and Rs.68,010 as per letters dated 17.9.2001 and 17.5.2004 in respect of plot No.293, from Pawan Kumar complainant as enhanced price on account of the enhanced price of the land along with interest in all these above state complaints, in FA No.58 Rs.2,75,994 and Rs.3,07,752 as per letter dated 24.9.2001 and 17.5.2004 in respect of plot No.904 allotted to Subhash Chander on account of enhanced price of the acquired land along with interest, in F. A. No.48 Rs.1,06,003 as per letter dated 24.9.2001 and 17.5.2004 in respect of the plot No.931 allotted to Shashi Bansal on account of enhanced price of the acquired land along with interest. Notices under Sec.17 (1) of the Act, 1977 were issued to the complainants in this regard. The complainants asked the opposite parties to furnish the details of the amount claimed so as to enabling them to deposit the amount demanded. Thereafter, notice under Sec.17 (2) of the Act, 1977 was served upon the complainants whereby they were afforded opportunity to explain their position with regard to the demand made. In answer to the notice, they appeared before the Estate Officer, HUDA and demanded the details of the amount, which they were required to pay. They were assured that the necessary details would be furnished to them but without effect. The complainants approached the opposite parties with the request that they were willing to pay the enhanced price and interest as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter but were informed that they were required to pay compound interest @ 15% per annum on the demanded amount on additional price for the period of delay. Forced by these circumstances the complainant filed the present complaints seeking direction against the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand notice above and to recalculate the outstanding amount of the additional price on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest at the rate mentioned in the demand notices, to execute the conveyance deed in their favour and also to pay Rs.3,000 as costs of proceedings in each case. The complaints were contested by the opposite parties. In the separate written statements filed in each of these complaints, a common objection was taken that the dispute raised by the complainant in each of the complaint relates to the interest which involves issue of pricing and the same cannot be adjudicated by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986 ). They also raised the plea of estoppel and locus standi. On merits it was pleaded that the demand made in the notices served upon the complainant related to the outstanding amount in respect of the additional price on account of the land compensation and interest payable by the complainant. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions noticed earlier. It is against this order, the present appeals have been filed. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the appellants while assailing the order dated 11.11.2005 of the District Forum had made three-fold submission before us. Firstly, that the dispute raised by the complainants pertain to interest and such dispute involving pricing and interest, cannot be adjudicated upon under the Act, 1986, as the interest is one of the components of price. Reliance was placed on case Delhi Development Authority V/s. Kamini Chopra, 1996 1 CPJ 285, Housing Board Haryana V/s. Kartar Chand, etc., 1995 1 CPJ 7 and Gujarat Housing Board V/s. Datania Amrit Lal Ful Chand, 1993 3 CPJ 351. Secondly, that the District Forum gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that compound interest on the delayed payment cannot be charged by the opposite parties. Thirdly, that the impugned order dated 11.11.2005 so passed by the District Forum has not been dated separately by the President and other Members and for that reason the provisions of Rule 4 (9) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004 read with Sec.15 of the Act have been violated and for that reason illegality committed in this regard justify the the acceptance of the appeals in all the cases. In support of the stand taken reliance has been placed on case Housing Board Haryana V/s. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association and Others, 1996 AIR(SC) 92. In this regard it was also contended by him that the settled proposition of law is required to be followed and support in this regard was sought from the observation made in case Dwarikesh Sugar Industries V/s. Prem Heavy Engg. Works,1997 2 CLT 468. Opposing the submission made it has been vehemently urged by the Counsel representing the respondent-complainants that dispute raised in these appeals is not in respect of pricing of the allotted plots to the complainants but is in respect of the terms of the allotment letters issued to them and whether on the basis of counter-factual obligation, compound interest could be charged by the opposite parties on balance amount to be paid by the complainant on amount of enhanced compensation so determined for the delayed period and for that reason cases cited have no application to the controversy raised in these appeals. In support of the stand taken reliance has been placed by him on unreported judgment bearing F. A. No.457 of 2006 'haryana Development Authority V/s. Sohan Lal' decided on 4.4.2006. As regard the compound interest claimed by the opposite parties in respect of the delayed period of payment it was submitted that where agreement does not provide payment of the compound interest, it cannot be charged. Reference in this regard was made to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.40 of 2005 decided on 3.2.2005 in case titled Estate Officer HUDA, Ambala V/s. Gurdial Singh. Regarding the other submission made it was used by the learned Counsel for the complainants that cursory examination of the impugned order would reveal that date has been mentioned on the right side of words 'announced' and further has been signed by the President and Members and for that reason there has been no violation of Rule 4 (9) of the Rules and Sec.15 of the Act, 1986 and as such no assistance can be had by the appellants from the cited cases.