Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5621 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Haryana Urban Development Authority
RESPONDENT:
Navdeep Chaudhary
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2004
BENCH:
S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP ) No.13904 of 2003)
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Delay condoned.
Special leave granted.
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 placed 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. 553
in Sector-45, Gurgaon, on 2nd February 1998. At the time of allotment
price of plot was fixed at Rs.6,80,262/-. It was then enchanced to
Rs.9,57,117/- pursuant to an Award of a Court. However, the High
Court thereafter reduced the Award and by the reduction the price
became Rs.6,53,400/-. The Appellants did not recalculate the price in
terms of High Court Award and did not also carry out development
work. As the possession was not being delivered at the correct price
the Respondent filed a complaint.
The District Forum by its Order dated 24th December 2001,
awarded interest @ 15% after two years from the date of deposit till
the offer of possession. It also awarded Rs. 2 lacs as escalation in the
cost of construction and a further amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs. The
State Commission increased the rate of interest from 15% to 18%, but
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
set aside the Award of Rs. 2 lacs. The National Commission has
dismissed the revision.
We are told that interest @ 12% has been paid and/or is
adjusted against the amount payable by the Respondent. Possession
has also been offered on 15th March 2001. In our view, as the
possession is being delivered, interest @ 12% is sufficient. We,
therefore, maintain the Order of the State Commission, save and
except that interest shall be paid @ 12%. The Appellants to forthwith
pay to the Respondent the sum of Rs.25,000/- and balance payment
of interest @ 12%, if any, remaining payable. The Respondent is at
liberty to take possession. The Appellants to inform the Respondent
that he can take possession at the rate of Rs.6,53,400/-.
The Appellants shall deliver possession without demanding any
higher amount. They can however insist on registration charges being
paid.
We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in
any other matter as it has been passed by 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 directions, the Appeal stands disposed off with no
order as to costs.