Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5623 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Surinder Singh
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.13897 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.
DSB-60, Sector-Old Court, Hisar, on 30th June, 1988. As the
possession was not delivered, the Respondent filed a complaint.
The District Forum directed payment of interest @ 18% from the
date of deposit till the date of offer of possession. The State
Commission, in the Appeal filed by the Appellants, reduced the rate of
interest from 18% to 15% and further directed that interest would be
payable after two years from the date of deposit. The National
Commission disposed of the revision in terms of its Judgment in HUDA
vs. Darsh Kumar.
For reasons set out in the case of Ghaziabad Development
Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra) the Order of the National
Commission cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
We are told that interest @ 15% has been paid on 11th May 1999
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
and possession has also been offered on 6th October 1997. As interest
@ 15% has already been paid on the principles set out by us in our
Judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh
(supra), the Appellants cannot claim refund. If the TDS has been
deducted then the Appellants shall pay to the Respondent, within two
weeks from today, the amount of TDS deducted with interest thereon
at the rate of 12% from the date of deduction till payment. The
Appellants to inform the Respondent that he can take possession
whenever he wants. The Appellants not to claim any further or other
amounts from the Respondent.
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.