- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) ONE Baldev Singh Nagar was allotted residential plot No. 718 (later on re- numbered 883) measuring 14 marlas in Sector 13 of the Urban Estate at Karnal under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964, which was repealed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1997. The said plot was subsequently transferred to the respondent herein, Shri Raj Singh Rana, as will be evident from the letter dated 22. 3. 1974 addressed to the respondent by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Karnal. In the said letter various conditions have been set out in respect of the said allotment, of which we are concerned with the condition Nos. 1,2,3,4,8 and 15, which are reproduced hereinbelow: JUDGEMENT_403_JT8_2008Html1.htm There is no dispute that the entire amount, as initially computed as tentative sale price, was fully paid by the respondent, together with further amounts on account of enhanced compensation paid for the plot, on the basis of the demand notices issued to the respondent from time to time. The problem arose when in addition to the above, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal, by his Memo dated 15. 6. 2001 raised an additional demand of Rs. 71,800/- by imposing simple interest @ 10 per cent per annum up to 31. 3. 1987, 15 per cent per annum up to 15. 1. 1988, compound interest @ 15 per cent up to 31. 8. 2000 and thereafter again simple interest @ 15% per annum up to 31. 8. 2001. According to the respondent, the rate of interest as indicated in the allotment letter being 7 per cent simple interest per annum, the appellant had acted illegally in demanding interest at the higher rates, indicated hereinabove and such demand being arbitrary could not be sustained. Aggrieved by such demand, the respondent filed complaint case No. 591 of 2002 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum praying for refund of Rs. 35,200/-, which according to the respondent was the excess amount of interest charged over and above the rate of interest at 7 per cent indicated in the allotment letter. The respondent also prayed for interest @ 12 per cent on the refund amount from 2. 11. 2001, when the interest amount was demanded and paid under protest, until repayment. The District Forum accepted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent herein and held that the appellants could charge interest only at the stipulated rate mentioned in the allotment letter, namely, 7 per cent per annum and directed the appellant to calculate the interest @ 7 per cent on the 3rd and 4th enhancements and to refund the extra amount charged to the complainant/respondent with interest at the rate of 7 per cent from the date of the complaint till its refund. The decision of the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission, and ultimately, the appellant herein took the matter in revision to the National Commission in R. P. No. 2217 of 2004. The National Commission, while confirming the view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission as to the rate of interest which could have been charged by the appellant, considered another aspect relating to charging of compound interest @ 15 per cent per annum from 16. 1. 1988 to 31. 8. 2000 and held that the appellant was not entitled to charge such compound interest.
(3.) IT is against the said order of the National Commission that this appeal has been filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "huda" ). On behalf of the HUDA it was strenuously urged that the rate of interest @ 17 per cent per annum, as indicated in the allotment letter, was only with regard to default in payment of instalments for the tentative sale price and not as regards the additional amounts required to be paid in case of enhancement of compensation for acquisition cost of the land, for which no rate of interest had been stipulated. It was submitted that on account of default in payment of the instalments of the enhanced compensation, on account of the low interest which was being charged, a decision was taken by HUDA on 15. 1. 1987 to increase the normal rate of interest to 10 per cent per annum and interest for the delayed payment of instalments to 18 per cent per annum, which would also include the normal interest of 10 per cent. It was submitted that it was on account of such revised policy that HUDA had charged interest at the rates indicated hereinbefore to ensure that instalments were paid in time. Apart from his aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant could not justify charging of compound interest as was done in the instant case.;