Haryana

StateCommission

A/990/2017

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUSUM KHANNA - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH SHARMA

10 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution:16.08.2017                      

                                                                               Date of final hearing:10.05.2023

                                                                                           Date of pronouncement:29.05.2023

                                                                    

FIRST APPEAL No.990 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:                                       

 

Haryana Urban Development Authroity, office at Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City through its Estate Officer.

…Appellant

Through counsel Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Advocate

 

Versus

 

Smt. Kusum Khanna (Advocate) wife of Shri S.S. Khanna, Advocate, R/o House No.192, Sector-9, Ambala City.

…Respondent

Through counsel Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Sudhir Gupta, counsel for the respondent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                   Delay of 73 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for conodonation of delay.

2.               Present appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (now learned ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint was allowed and the present appellant-opposite party (‘OP’) was directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we accept the complaint and quash the amount of Rs.1,10,638/- raised on behalf of OP vide memo No.8895 dated 30.08.2011. So, this Forum direct the OP to issue the fresh demand notice by calculating the amount with current rate of interest within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.”

 

3.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that complainant was an allottee of Plot No.192, Sectr-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City through the office of OP and the complainant has constructed a residential house as per the specification of the OP by depositing all the dues and installations etc. including enhanced costs and to get no dues clearance certificate, complainant approached the office of OP in May and June, 2010 when she was supplied computer generated statement of accounts in respect of her plot on 28.05.2010 and then on 01.06.2010 showing that no amount was outstanding against the said plot. It was alleged that thereafter, she received a recovery notice from OP vide letter No.774 dated 08.06.2010 showing a sum of Rs.1,57,050/- was due from her. However, she deposited the aforesaid amount in three parts on different dates and on 23.08.2011, she was supplied a computer generated statement showing outstanding balance as zero. It was further alleged that she received another letter No.8895 dated 30.08.2011 from the OP showing a sum of Rs.92,873/- and Rs.17,765/- as dues against the said plot. Thereafter, she approached the Ops as to how the abovementioned amount was shown as due, but OP failed to reply the same. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.

4.                Upon notice, OP appeared before learned District Commission and submitted its written version and submitted therein that the complainant was not original allottee of Plot No.192, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City and at the time of issuing the account statement to the complainant, it was noticed that the enhanced amount due against the ibid plot had not been entered in the computer system though at the time of re-allotment the complainant was furnished with all the information pertaining to the ibid plot and the complainant was issued with the notice dated 14.10.2005 for payment of enhanced compensation due against the said plot. It was further submitted that thereafter, notice dated 22.05.2008 was issued for payment of enhanced compensation and the amount of Rs.1,31,225/- is still outstanding against the said plot. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned above in 1^st para (Supra).

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, OP-appellant (HUDA) has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 7.                  Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Sudhir Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                  As per the complainant-respondent she was re-allotted a plot bearing No.192, Sector-9, Ambala by the OP-appellant vide letter No.6181 dated 19.07.1999 and later on constructed the residential house over the same. As per the demand raised by appellant, respondent-complainant had paid the sum of Rs.1,57,000/- and applied for no dues certificate on 24.08.2011. Thereafter, appellant issued a letter dated 30.08.2011 for clearance of a sum of Rs.92,873/- & Rs.17,765/-. Moreover, the computer generated account statement also reflects that nothing is due towards the respondent. In support of his version, learned counsel for respondent-complainant has also placed on record the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No.4436 of 2008, in case titled as “HUDA Vs. Raj Singh Rana” decided on 16^th July, 2008 wherein it has been held that HUDA cannot charge compound interest for the period of default on demand of enhanced/additional prices and delayed payments at the rate exceeding the current rate of interest.

9.                  On the other hand, as per appellant, they issued letter dated 14.10.2005 & 22.05.2008 claiming the enhancement amount but the respondent did not pay the same.

10.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a careful perusal of entire record as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in HUDA Vs. Raj Singh Rana, 2008 (Supra), it is proved that the appellant-OP cannot charge compound interest for the period of default on demand of enhanced/additional prices and delayed payments at the rate exceeding the current rate of interest. Thus, learned District Commission rightly observed that present appellant-OP was deficient in service and quashed the demand of amount of Rs.1,10,638/- raised on behalf of present appellant vide memo No.8895 dated 30.08.2011. Impugned order dated 24.04.2017, passed by learned District Commission, Ambala is well reasoned, based on facts, as per law and there is no need to interfere with it.  Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed while upholding the order passed by the learned District Commission.

11.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

12.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 29^th May, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III       

 

R.K