Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7224 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Ghaziabad Development Authority
RESPONDENT:
Chander Bhan Singh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/08/2004
BENCH:
S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT
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 applied for a house in Govindpuram
Extension/Sadhna Duplex Residential Scheme. The entire amount
was deposited. Ultimately the Respondent was issued a reservation
letter in Karpuripuram Scheme, but even in this Scheme the
possession of the house was not delivered nor any particular house
allotted to him. The Respondent therefore filed a complaint before the
District Forum.
While the matter was pending before the District Forum the
Respondent was given an option to take a house in Govindpuram HIG
Duplex at an increased price of Rs.6,15,000/-. The Respondent could
not afford the increased price and therefore was not willing to take the
house.
The District Forum directed refund of all amounts with interest at
the rate of 18% p.a. The State Forum dismissed the Appeal with costs
of Rs.2,000/-. The National Forum also dismissed the Revision.
In respect of Karpuripuram Scheme, this Court has, in its Order
in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
(supra), held as follows:
"21. In a scheme known as "Karpuripuram Scheme" plots
were allotted, monies collected. However, thereafter the
Scheme was cancelled. In some of the matters we have
seen that the District Forum has recorded that the
authority could give no explanation as to why the Scheme
was cancelled. Before us some sort of explanation is
sought to be given. In our view, irrespective of whether
there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies
must be returned with interest at the rate of 18%. We say
so because it is clear that even if the body has not already
floated another scheme on the same land it is clear that
the body is going to derive great profit from this land and
therefore compensating the allottee with interest at 18%
per annum is just and fair.
22. In Civil Appeal No. 7224 of 2002 the
respondent had applied for a house in a scheme floated in
1992. He had paid the entire cost. He had been allotted a
flat and issued a reservation letter. Yet no possession was
given. Thereafter, in 1996 the respondent was informed
that for unavoidable reasons the house has been allotted
to somebody else and if he desires, he can obtain an
alternate flat at a much higher price. This, therefore, is
also a case where there is absolutely no justifiable reason
why the party has not been delivered possession of the flat
which had been allotted to him nor has any offer been
made to return his money with interest. Instead the body
has asked the party to apply for an alternate flat at a
higher rate. In our view, on these facts the award of
interest at the rate of 18% is justified. It is not just
interest on the amount invested but is also compensation
for the harassment and agony caused to the allottee. We
have given these two instances only by way of
illustrations."
Thus, no interference is called for with the award of interest at the rate
of 18% p.a. as the Karipuripuram Scheme stood cancelled.
We are told that interest at the rate of 12% p.a. has been paid
vide Cheques dated 5th September, 2000 for Rs.96,000/- and dated 4th
September, 2002 for Rs.53,793/-. The Appellants have, however,
deducted TDS. The Appellants must now pay interest at the rate of
18% p.a. calculated from the date they received each deposit till date
of payment. The Appellants are directed to refund the TDS amount
deducted along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. thereon to the
Respondent for reasons set out in our Judgment delivered today in
Civil Appeal No. 8400 of 2002. Along with the payment they should
also handover a calculation sheet to the Respondent showing how they
have calculated the interest amount.
We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in
any other matter having been passed on account of the 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.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly.