Haryana

StateCommission

A/444/2015

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANTA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.MAHAJAN

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.444 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 13.05.2015

Date of Decision: 26.07.2016

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator at Panchkula.

2.      Adminstrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar.

3.      Estate Officer, Haryana Urban  Development Authority, Sirsa.

                                                                   .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Kanta Devi Goyal wife of Shri Madan Lal Goyal, resident of Gali Geeta Bhawan, Hissaria, Bazar, Tehsil & District Sirsa.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rajesh Kaul, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.B.S.Mittal, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    It was alleged by the complainant that she was allotted residential plot No.20B measuring 500 Sq. yards vide allotment letter No.612 dated 24.01.2002 for a consideration of Rs.9,90,000/- which was to be paid in six installments. Vide letter dated 28.02.2008, Opposite Party (in short “O.P.”)  No.3 asked to deposit Rs.1,41,000/- + delayed interest. In anticipation of that letter she deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.03.2008 and Rs.25,000/- on 07.04.2008. Vide letter dated 07.01.2009 O.P.No.3 asked to deposit Rs.71,000/- + interest on delayed payment whereas she had already made the entire payment on 07.04.2008 but even then she deposited Rs.50,000/- on 13.01.2009 and Rs.25,000/- on 16.01.2009. OPs again asked to deposit Rs.3011/- vide letter dated 01.02.2009 which was deposited on 15.02.2009. When she obtained statement of account, it was revealed that the OPs charged Rs.3,43,000/- more from her. While admitting their liability OPs refunded Rs.3,43,000/- vide cheque No.192112 dated 17.03.2011 drawn on Punjab National Bank (in short “PNB”). It came to notice after going through statement that her account was settled on 07.04.2008, but, even thereafter she deposited Rs.4,03,011/- whereas OPs refunded only Rs.3,43,000/-. She approached OPs to refund Rs.60011/-, but, to no result.

2.                OPs filed reply alleging that when her account was overhauled it was found that Rs.3,43,000/- were recovered in ecess and they were refunded vide cheque No.192112 dated 17.03.2011. As excess amount paid by her is already refunded she is not entitled to recover Rs.60011/-. Objections about jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, accruing cause of action and concealment of true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (in short “District Forum”) vide order dated 29.01.2015 came to the conclusion that Rs.3,43,206/- were charged in excess but the complainant was entitled for the interest @  18 % per annum from the date of deposit of excess amount besides Rs.15,000/- for harassment, mental agony etc. and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

4.               Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the OPs have preferred this appeal. 

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that  they charged interest @ 10 % only and learned District Forum has granted interest on the higher rate. Normal rate of interest is also very less. When the amount, paid in excess, is already refunded there is no question of harassment and learned District Forum wrongly granted relief mentioned above and the impugned order may be set aside.

7.      This argument is of no avail. In Ex.C-29 it is clearly mentioned that in case of delayed installment interest @ 18 % penal interest will be charged. It shows that the OPs were claiming interest @ 18 %. More-so, without any fault of the complainant, OPs have charged  such huge amount from her. When she had already paid the entire amount by 07.04.2008 there was no occasion for OPs to demand extra  money. Hon’ble National Commission has opined in complaint No.347 of 2014 titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited decided on 14.08.2015 that where complainant is harassed, the builder can be asked to pay interest @ 18 %. In the present case, OPs harassed the complainant without any fault so they are liable to pay interest @ 18 %.  Findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be interfered.  Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.10,225/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

July, 27th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench