HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MOHAN LAL KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of 67 days in filing revision petition is condoned.

(2.) In terms of the order dated 3.11.03 passed by the District Forum in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant against which the appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission by order dated 3.2.2006, the petitioner/opposite party was ordered to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs. 2,17,741/- and recalculate the amount due on the basis of simple interest instead of compound interest at the prescribed rate for the delayed period on the additional price and also to pay certain amount of compensation. Controversy in this revision revolves around the issue if the petitioner is entitled to charge interest at simple or compound rate for the delayed period on the additional price of the plot. Order of District Forum notices that the Counsel of petitioner was unable to show any policy under which petitioner is entitled to charge compound interest. Order further notices that allotment letter did not provide for charging on additional price interest at compound rate by the petitioner authority. In absence of any policy decision, allotment letter not providing for charging of interest at compound rate on additional price and the ratio in Gian Inder Sharma v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr., AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 128, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by fora below ordering the petitioner authority to charge simple instead of compound interest on the additional price of the plot. Dismissed.