Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondents on admission. Factual matrix are that respondents were allotted building No.20 Sector 25, in Panipat on 18.11.1997 in public auction by HUDA against consideration of Rs.17,07,000/-, following which 25% of consideration money was deposited by them. In terms of condition No.5 of allotment letter, to which my attention was drawn by learned counsel for petitioner-authority, residual 75% of sale consideration was required to be deposited by respondents either in 60 days from the date of issuance of letter carrying no interest or in 8 half yearly instalments along with 15% interest. Respondents chose second option. However they failed to adhere to payment schedule as per terms and condition of allotment letter. A notice was eventually issued against respondents under Section 17 of the HUDA Act, asking them to pay amount of Rs.19,93,770/- as due on 31.05.2003 which was inclusive of instalments due, interest and also penalty. Aggrieved respondents filed a complaint with District Forum seeking relief for issuing direction to petitioner-authority to charge interest @ 9% per annum alone. Contention has been raised on behalf of respondents that despite all efforts on their part to seek detailed account to ascertain dues pending with them, no account was furnished by petitioner-authority. Claim of respondents was resisted by petitioner-authority before District Forum holding that since respondents have chosen second option, the respondents are liable under contract to pay interest @ 15% p.a. and also penal interest due on instalment. Be that as it may, District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties, while accepting claim, directed petitioner-authority to overhaul account of petitioner by charging simple interest @ 12% due on instalments. Petitioner was also restrained from charging any penalty. It also directed that compliance of order be carried out within a period of thirty days. Aggrieved HUDA preferred appeal before State Commission and during pendency of proceeding State Commission disposed of appeal based on undertaking of learned counsel for respondents, which was in following terms:- “It is stated that complainant is ready and willing to pay entire outstanding amount in two installments with appellant HUDA alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum as mentioned in Condition No.5 of the allotment letter dated 18.11.1997 vide which plot No.20 Sector 25, Transport Nagar, Panipat was allotted to the complainant within three months from today provided that the HUDA will not charge the penalty amount the complainant during the grace period.” Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since prayer made in complaint itself by respondents for issuing direction to charge 9% interest only on instalments due, was contrary to terms and condition of allotment letter, Complaint being not maintainable before Forum, deserves dismissal. That apart it has been submitted that HUDA is also authorized to charge interest and penal interest in case allottees do not adhere to payment schedule. As has been noticed, by accepting submissions made on behalf of respondents, State Commission had directed respondents to make entire payment of due instalments alongwith 15% interest per annum, which was contractual rate of interest within a period of three months. HUDA has been directed not to charge any interest from respondents during grace period. In catena of decisions, Courts have issued guidelines in regard to HUDA not charging compound interest. Having considered finding of State Commission, I find no infirmity and revision petition in circumstances is dismissed with no order as to costs. Respondents are directed to pay outstanding sum along with @ 15 % interest per annum in terms of order of State Commission.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER | |
