HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SURINDER KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.1.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula where-by accepting the complaint of the respondent/complainant following direction has been given to the appellants/opposite parties : "Resultantly, in view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the complaint-in-hand is hereby allowed and the OPs are hereby directed

(2.) Shortly stated the facts of the case are that plot No. 899-P measuring 14 marlas located in Sector-7, Ambala city was allotted to the complainant as per memo dated 10.12.1974. In order to get the conveyance deed executed in his favour, the complainant approached the opposite parties to furnish the details of the outstanding dues as on 30.4.2005. In reply the opposite parties vide memo dated 2.5.2005 informed him that a sum of Rs. 3,10,425 was payable by him upto 30.4.2005. At the same time the basis on which the demand was made, was not furnished to him. However, he was informed that compound interest has been charged on the enhanced price for the period of default. Aggrieved by the demand made the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint alleging that compound interest cannot be charged on the enhanced price of the land for the period of delay and accordingly sought direction against the opposite parties to recalculate the amount on the basis of simple interest to be paid by him and to withdraw the demand notice of Rs. 3,10,425 illegally made from him. He also sought directions against the opposite parties to execute the sale deed on deposit of the amount payable by him and to pay Rs. 20,000 on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed, it was pleaded that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involving interest amount. At the same time they justified the demand made on the enhancement of land compensation along with interest as per HUDA policy/instructions framed and issued by the opposite parties from time-to-time. Accordingly, it was prayed that complaint merited dismissal. On examination of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum found no substance in the stand taken by the opposite parties and while accepting the complaint issued the directions as per order dated 13.1.2006 noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the appellant has been heard at length. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent to argue the matter.