CHANDER KANTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three Appeal Nos.698 of 1995 Smt. Chander Kanta and Another V/s. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 16 of 1996 HUDA V/s. Smt. Chander Kanta and Another, and 715 of 1995 HUDA V/s. Mrs. Purnima Dutta, as all these appeals are against the orders dated 20th October, 1995 passed by learned District Forum, Karnal, whereby the complaints filed against HUDA challenging the imposition of penalty as well as interest on the delayed payments, have been allowed by passing the following order: "the complaints are held to be time-barred as regards the main prayer of the complainants regarding the waiving of the amount of enhancement or payment of interest on the instalments paid earlier. However, any interest of the penalty amount or interest beyond 10% on the delayed instalments of the tentative price of the plot or beyond 15% p. a. (simple) on the amount of enhancement is held to be deficiency in service and O/p is restrained from charging the same. It is directed, that O/p shall submit a revised calculation sheet to the complainant for the amount as per directions given above and then the parties shall proceed us according to law. "

(2.) According to the complainants they were allotted residential plots in Sector 14 (II), Urban Estate, Karnal on 11th September, 1985. However possession of the plots could not be delivered by HUDA due to pendency of some litigation. Later on alternative plots were offered at a higher price due to enhanced compensation being paid by HUDA. The complainants failed to pay the enhanced amount resulting into accumulation of interest thereon. Aggrieved by that the complainants approached the District Forum. According to the complainants, HUDA was guilty of deficiency in service as they had already deposited a sum of Rs.40,798-90 paise in full and final payment of the same. Therefore, instead of imposing any penalty or any interest thereon, HUDA was liable to pay interest on the amount deposited by them. In their reply, HUDA pleaded that the complaints were time-barred as the same had been filed in May, 1994 whereas the cause of action had accrued to the complainants on 8th April, 1992. Apart from that, it was also pleaded that under the Consumer Protection Act HUDA was required to pay interest @ 15% on the enhancement in the price of the land and on that basis the payment was sought to be justified. The learned District Forum after going through the record in detail came to the conclusion that though the complaints were time-barred regarding the waiving of the amount of enhanced compensation and the payment of interest on the instalments already paid by them, yet they were not liable to pay any penalty or the interest thereon beyond 10% on the delayed instalments of the tentative price of the plots.

(3.) In the appeals before us, learned Counsel appearing for HUDA has vehemently contended that once the learned District Forum has come to the conclusion that the principal claim in the complaints was time-barred, there was no legal justification in granting the ancillary relief regarding the payment of interest made by HUDA on the delayed payment of instalments, etc. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainants and in the cross appeal filed by complainants Chander Kanta and Anil Mangia, has vigorously pleaded that firstly there was no legal justification for HUDA to demand higher price of the alternative plots offered in lieu of the old ones. Secondly, the interest on the delayed payments and the imposition of penalty are wholly unwarranted. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that so far as the question of demanding the higher price by HUDA is concerned, the grievance of the complainants is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Otherwise also, the grievance being more than two years old the claim has rightly been rejected by the learned District Forum. However as regards the imposition of penalty and the demand of interest thereon as well as on the delayed instalments is concerned, HUDA is not legally entitled to claim the same. There is no provision in law empowering HUDA to demand interest beyond 10% on the delayed payments. In these circumstances, the view taken by the learned District Forum is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. Consequently, all the three appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.