Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6036 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Haryana Urban Development Authority
RESPONDENT:
Mohan Lal Goyal
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/2004
BENCH:
S.N. VARIAVA & A.K. MATHUR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Before this Court a large number of Appeals have been filed by
the Haryana Urban Development Authority and/or the Ghaziabad
Development Authority challenging Orders of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, granting to Complainants, interest at
the rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the fact of each case. This
Court has, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir
Singh reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65, deprecated this practice. This
Court has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all
cases irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court has held that
the Consumer Forums could grant damages/compensation for mental
agony/harassment where it finds misfeasance in public office. This
Court has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or
injury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury
and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury. This Court has
held that the Forum or the Commission thus had to determine that
there was deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office and
that it has resulted in loss or injury. This Court has also laid down
certain other guidelines which the Forum or the Commission has to
follow in future cases.
This Court is now taking up the cases before it for disposal as
per principles set out in earlier judgment. On taking the cases we find
that the copies of the Claim/Petitions made by the
Respondent/Complainant and the evidence, if any, led before the
District Forum are not in the paper book. This Court has before it the
Order of the District Forum. The facts are thus taken from that Order.
In this case, the Respondent was allotted a plot bearing No.
472/P.L.A. Sector, Hisar. The Respondent paid substantial amounts
but the possession was not delivered. Thus the Respondent filed a
complaint. On these facts, the District Forum awarded interest @ 18%
p.a. on the entire deposited amount from the date of deposit till offer
of possession.
The State Forum dismissed the Appeal and modified the order of
the District Forum by awarding interest @ 12% p.a. The Appellants
went in Revision before the National Commission. The National
Commission dismissed the Revision filed by the Appellants relying
upon its own decision in the case of Haryana Urban Development
Authority v. Darsh Kumar and observing that interest @ 18% p.a. has
been awarded by them under similar circumstances.
As has been stated in so many matters, the Order of the
National Commission cannot be sustained. It cannot dispose of the
matters by confirming award of interest irrespective of the facts of that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
case. If the National Commission feels that facts of a case so justify it
may award compensation/damages under a head as set out in Balbir
Singh’s case (supra). The Order of the National Commission is
accordingly set aside.
In this case possession was offered on 29th November, 1994 and
taken in 1994. The Appellants have also paid a sum of Rs.2,86,909/-
to the Respondent on 19th April 1996. In our view this is much more
then what we would have directed the Appellants to pay. However, for
reasons set out in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) the Appellants cannot
claim any refund. We thus see no reason to interfere.
We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in
any other matter as the order is being passed taking into account
special features of the case. The Forum/Commission will follow the
principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra) in future cases.
With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of with no
order as to costs.