JUDGMENT

                                                               5.2.2010

Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         The aforesaid six  appeals have arisen out of three separate orders but all the complainants/re-allottees had challenged  a similar kind of notice (all dated 28.1.2000) issued to them for recovery of remaining interest amount on their respective plots all situated in Sector-17, Jagadhri.  Therefore, common question of law and fact is involved in all these aforesaid six appeals. In fact, three appeals have been filed by  opposite parties whereas other three cross appeals have been filed by complainants. In their respective appeals complainants have challenged the finding of the District Consumer Forum regarding the payment of  dues on account of higher interest as mentioned in impugned  letters . On the other hand, OPs have sought further interest beyond 28.1.2000 as the same was not granted by the District Forum. 

2.              The parties   hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.      

3.          In nutshell, the facts as culled out   of appeal case No.394/2002(Hry)/RBT/644/2009  are  that the complainant Satish Kumar    was re-allottee of plot No.2147, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri.  The said plot was re-allotted after getting the entire dues cleared and on acceptance of fee for transfer of the said plot from the name of original allottee to the name of complainant. It was alleged that at the time of re-allotment the HUDA was entitled to recover the interest @ 10% p.a. on the delayed payments  of installments and as such the interest was charged @ 10% p.a. as per instructions of the HUDA. After one year the HUDA had sent a notice  vide letter No.270 dated 28.1.2000 demanding the payment of difference of interest.   It was alleged that the demand created by HUDA was illegal,  without basis and against law which caused mental tension to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, complainant filed complaint  No.121 of 2000 before the  District Consumer Forum for quashing the said demand.

4.        On the other hand,  the case of OPs before the District Consumer Forum was that  the complainant had furnished an affidavit to the effect that if any amount was found due against the plot payable to HUDA, he would be liable to pay the same at any later stage. It was clearly mentioned in the re-allotment letter that “Due Nil- subject to audit and clarification of interest from the Head Office”  and this condition was accepted and undertaken by the complainant. So, as such the complainant was legally bound to pay the difference of interest. The rate of interest on late deposit installments was 18% but the original allottee had paid interest @ 10% p.a.. After verification from the CA/head office and audit report, OPs sent notice to the complainant for depositing the difference of interest calculated @ 18% and there was no illegality in it. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.   

5.        Similarly Surinder Kumar complainant was served  by OPs with notice vide letter No.293 dated 28.1.2000 and Rakesh Kumar was served  with notice bearing vide letter No.294  dated 28.1.2000 to deposit the difference of interest. Both these complainant filed separate complaints bearing NO.111 of 2000 and 110 of 2000 respectively before the District Forum. OPs  in their replies   took  the same pleas as were taken in the case of Satish Kumar.  

 6.       The District Consumer Forum after  going through the evidence and material brought on record and  hearing the  counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the HUDA was entitled to recover the interest @ 18% p.a. and directed them to recover the amount as per memo dated 28.1.2000 and no further interest was to be charged on this amount from the date of letter dated 28.1.2000. The facts of all these cases were akin to each other, so similar order was passed in all the three complaints. This is how feeling aggrieved, complainants as well as opposite parties had filed their separate    appeals before  the Haryana State Consumer Commission which have   been transferred to this Commission under  the directions of Hon’ble National Commission.

 7.       We have heard Sh.Parveen Kumar, advocate , counsel for complainant, Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra,advocate counsel for the HUDA and have gone through the material brought on record. Admittedly all the three  complainants are re-allottees of plots.  Complainant Satish Kumar was re-allotted plot No.2147 in Sector-17, Jagadhri whereas complainant Surinder Kumar was re-allotted plot No.2148 and Satish Kumar was re-allotted plot No.2149 in the same Sector-17, Jagadhri.  Re-allottment letters issued to all the complainants are available on the file.  The learned counsel for OPs contended that although the HUDA had charged interest @ 10% from the original allottees, yet at the time of re-allotment it was mentioned in the re-allotment letter that the dues were nil but subject to audit and clarification about the interest from the head office.  The amount claimed from the complainants is on account of interest  on delayed payment of installments which was @ 18% p.a. but the original allottees had paid interest on delayed installments @ 10% p.a. He further contended that the complainants had given their affidavits accepting the terms and conditions of the re-allotment and had undertaken to make payment of the outstanding dues. Even otherwise the complainants had stepped into the shoes of original allottees, so they were liable to pay the said amount.  However, the learned counsel for complainant repelled these contentions by stating that the complainants as well as the original allottees had already paid the entire dues to the OPs  and even ‘ No Objection Certificate ‘ was issued to them  so as such the demand raised by OPs was illegal  and without any basis.  

8.        We have given our holistic view to the rival contentions and find that  in the re-allotment letter  it is clearly mentioned that the complainants  had submitted their  respective affidavits alongwith their applications for transfer of plots in their names  to the effect that they would accept the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The said affidavit reads as under ;

           “1.That I /we accept the allotment of the residential plot No.____

                Sector___ Urban Estate, Jagadhri measuring ----

       2..That I/we further  undertake to make payment of all the

           outstanding dues or the amount as may be due or become   

            liable/standing dues or against this plot at any later stage.

           3.  That I/we accept the terms and conditions to the allotment of                               plot and incidental open space, if any stage, and shall abide                                by the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development                                           Authority Act,1977 and the rules          /regulations applicable                           thereunder and amended from time to time.

                Regarding payment of installments it is  recited in the re-allotment letter    as under :

“ you shall have to pay the balance Rs.------ installment of Rs-      ----- each on the dates given below –

                       “Dues NIL- subject to audit and clarification of interest from                                Head office”.

9.          The amounts claimed in the notices were on account of difference of interest. The original allottees of plots had been charged interest on delayed payment of installments @ 10% p.a. whereas it was chargeable @ 18% p.a., so as such OPs are entitled to charge the amounts claimed in the notice dated 28.1.2000 and complainants are liable to pay the same as they had accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment and submitted their affidavits to that effect. However, learned counsel for OPs could not show any law which could make them entitled to charge interest beyond the date as mentioned in the impugned notice dated 28.1.2000.

10.       In the result, the impugned order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum  in each complaint is upheld and all the  aforesaid  appeals filed by complainants as well as Opposite parties  are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  

            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.