State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ajit Singh vs D.D.A. on 12 December, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 12-12-2006 Complaint Case No. C-23/2005 Shri Ajit Singh, Complainant Prop. M/s New India Electrical works, Through, C-167, Naraina Industrial Area, Mr. P.L. Kalra, Phase I, New Delhi. Advocate. Versus Delhi Development Authority Respondent Through its Vice Chairman, Through I.N.A., Vikas Sadan, Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Through this complaint, the complainant has sought quashing of demand of interest of Rs. 18,77,662.00 raised by the Opposite Party (in short O.P.) vide its letter dated 07-11-2001 for effecting the mutation/transfer of the share in plot No. C-167, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I in the name of the complainant besides Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he being owner and in possession of the property bearing No. 167, Block-C, Naraina Industrial area, Phase I, New Delhi which was allotted and leased out by the OP-DDA he applied for transfer of the share in the leasehold rights in his name and pursuant to the said request of the complainant the Assistant Director (Indl.) Land Sales Branch of the OP vide his office letter dated 18-07-2000 for the first time raised a demand of Rs. 5,23,755/- towards 5% UEI i.e. unearned increase on 93.53% share, Rs. 8,457/- towards ground rent upto 14-07-2000 and Rs. 10,032/- towards interest on ground rent upto 14-07-2000, the details of which are as under:-
(i) 50% UEI on 53.535 shares - Rs. 5,23,755.00 (ii) Interest w.e.f. 2.8.81 i.e. date of - Rs. 17,91,242.00 application to till the date of actual payment. (iii) Ground rent upto 14.07.2000 Rs. 8,457.00 (iv) Interest on ground upto 14.7.2000 Rs. 10,032.00 ------------------------ Total Rs. 23,33,486.00 ============= 3.
Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,42,244/- through cheque No. 595113 dated 31-05-2001 on account of 50% UEI on 53.53% share Rs. 5,23,755/- + Rs. 8,457/- towards ground rent upto 14.07.2000 + 10,032/- towards interest on ground rent upto 14-07-2000, total Rs. 5,42,244/-.
4. The OP simultaneously in the said letter dated 18-07-2000 for the first time raised another demand of Rs. 17,91,242/- towards interest w.e.f. 02-08-1981. There was no details or any statement of account as to at what rate of interest and on which principal amount the alleged interest demand was created by the OP. Complainant further deposited on 28-09-2001 Rs. 538.00 on account of ground rent w.e.f. 15-01-2000 to 14-01-2001, through challan, pursuant to the OPs letter No. F.6(237)/67/LSB(I)/3227 dated 10-08-2001. He wrote various letters and also personally met the officials of the OP for effecting the mutation of the said plot/property in the name of the complainant, but without any fruitful result. Rather the OP enhanced the amount of interest to Rs. 18,77,662/- through its letter dated F.6A(237)/67/LSB(I)/3688 dated 07-11-2001. According to the complainant the said demand of interest w.e.f. 2-08-1981 by the OP is totally illegal, unwarranted, arbitrary and unconstitutional as the OP cannot make demand for interest with retrospective effect when the original principal demand was never raised or demanded by the OP prior to the letter dated 18-07-2000.
5. According to the OP-DDA the Unearned increase had been worked out amounting to Rs. 5,23,755/- and this amount was updated @ 18% w.e.f. 02-08-1981 to 31-07-2000 which comes to Rs. 17,91,242/-. Basically these are the updation charges which the complainant has not paid so far.
The amount of unearned increase was deposited on 27-06-2001 against the demand letter dated 18-07-2000 resulting in delay of 11 months of which the complainant is further liable to pay interest on unearned increase which comes to Rs. 86,420/- Hence the total amount of updation charges plus interest on unearned increase (Rs. 17,91,242/- + Rs. 86,420/-) is yet to be remitted by the complainant to the OP.
6. There is no provision or term of contract between the parties entitling the OP to charge interest @ 18% by way of updating the amount of unearned increase. Wherever there is no term of contract for providing a particular rate of interest between the parties a reasonable interest is chargeable which means it should be neither too high nor too low. The concept of charging interest on such type of recoveries is enshrined or propounded by section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. This provision empowers Civil Court to award interest in money suits on the grounds of good conscious, equity and justice.
As per this provision the interest should ordinarily be charged at rate which the moneys are borrowed or lend by the Nationalized Banks.
7. Proceeding on the said premise, we deem that interest charged by the OP @ 18% was on much higher side and fixed arbitrarily and not in terms of the agreement or any other rule governing the on the unearned increase.
8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint by directing the OP to charge interest @ 9% w.e.f. 02-08-1981 to 31-07-2000 and refund the amount, if any, received in excess within one month.
9. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on the 12th December, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj