JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The petitioner/complainant was allotted a residential house by the respondent Uttar Pradesh Awas Avam Vikas Parishad on 17.10.1988.  The complainant/petitioner made part payment of the cost of the house and the balance cost of the house was payable in 216 installments of Rs.815/- per month. The cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.82,939/- and the complainant claims to have paid a sum of Rs.1,76,040/- + Rs.6,685/- till date to the respondents.  The complainant/petitioner also executed a Hire Purchase Agreement with the respondents.  As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, in case of default in payment of the installments, penal interest @ 18% per annum was chargeable over and above the regular interest.  The respondents sent a Recovery Certificate to the concerned Collector asking him to recover a sum of Rs.1,21,537/- from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The complainant/petitioner then approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint alleging that an excess payment of Rs.6,685/- had been made by her. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondents primarily on the ground that the petitioner/complainant had defaulted in timely payment of the installments as a result of which, she was liable to pay penal interest as per the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement executed between the parties.

3.      The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.6,685/- alongwith compensation and interest.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of an

appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 15.04.2019, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the Consumer Complaint.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition. 

5.      A perusal of the Hire Purchase Agreement executed between the parties shows that in the event of delay in payment of the hire purchase installments, the complainant/petitioner was liable to pay penal interest @ 18% per annum over and above the regular interest.  It is not in dispute that the petitioner/complainant had not made timely payment of the installments though the total amount paid by her was more than the price of the house. 

6.      A perusal of the statement of account of the petitioner/complainant filed by the respondents Uttar Pradesh Awas Avam Vikas Parishad would show that the installments were not paid in time and that is why, interest as per the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement, was debited in her account.  The said statement of account also shows that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner/complainant was payable by her in terms of the said statement.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the Recovery Certificate issued by the respondents was not correct. 

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the interest charged by the respondent is highly exorbitant and cannot be justified.  It can hardly be disputed that penal interest of 18% per annum, over and above the normal interest was highly excessive.  But, the fact remains that the interest has been charged as per the agreement between the parties.  The respondent is a Public Sector Corporation which cannot manage its affairs unless the installments payable to it by the allottees are paid in time.  It is in order to ensure timely payment of the installments that the respondent has stipulated payment of penal interest in case of delay in payment of the installments.  In the absence of a provision for payment of penal interest, there will be no pressure on the hirer to pay the installments in time.  The respondent being a Public Sector Undertaking, cannot be equated with a private builder and cannot be said to be actuated by commercial consideration.  Unless the hire purchase installments are paid in time, such an Undertaking cannot perform the functions assigned to it.  

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.