Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2380 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Haryana Urban Development Authority
RESPONDENT:
Sita Ram
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/2004
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 was allotted a plot bearing No. R-
53, Sector M.T. Ratia, District Hisar vide letter no. 4775 dated 21st
March, 1982. The Respondent paid all dues but was not offered
possession.
On these facts, the District Forum directed payment of interest
@ 15% on deposited amount after the expiry of two years from the
date of deposit. It further held that the amount of penalty charged, if
any, would be adjusted in the remaining installments.
The State Forum found no case for interference and dismissed
the Appeal. The Respondent did not go in Revision before the National
Commission. The Appellants went in Revision before the National
Commission. The National Commission has increased the rate of
interest to 18% p.a.
For reasons set out in the Judgment 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. As
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
stated above, the relevant papers regarding the claim made, the
affidavits filed, the evidence submitted before the District Forum are
not produced before this Court. In this case, the allotment was made
in 1982 and the possession offered and taken in 2003. Interest
amount has also been paid. On these facts, we maintain the order of
the District Forum.
However, a complaint is made that the Appellants are not
executing the sale deed and are not giving permission to construct.
We, therefore, direct the Appellants to execute the sale deed and to
give permission to construct without claiming any amounts
whatsoever, except registration charges, from the Respondent. The
same is to be done within one month from today.
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.
This Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as
to costs.