Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5819 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
S. P. Gupta
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/07/2004
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.
2095, Sector 17, Jagadhari, Haryana measuring 6 marlas on 16th
September, 1987. The Respondent paid all dues including enhanced
price but was not offered possession till 10th April, 1995. When the
Respondent went to take possession he found that the plot was
encroached upon. There was a Khera and temple on the land. The
Appellants could not remove the encroachment and did not allot any
alternate plot in spite of requests to do so. After the Respondent filed
his complaint, possession of an alternate plot was offered on 28th
January, 1998.
On these facts, the District Forum has recorded that possession
of the alternate plot would be given. It has awarded compensation of
Rs. 20,000/- towards costs in escalation of construction, Rs. 5,000/-
for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- for costs of
proceedings. The District Forum has also awarded interest on the
compensation amount, which remained with the Appellants from 1987
to 1998, at the rate of 15% p.a. The District Forum has held that
some time would be taken for development and has awarded interest
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
from 5th October, 1990 till 28th January, 1998.
The State Forum confirmed the Award. 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. As 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 District Forum has ensured that the
possession is given. It has correctly awarded compensation for
escalation in costs of construction, mental agony and also correctly
awarded costs. Where possession is given at old rate, the party has
got benefit of escalation in price of land. Thus there cannot and
should not also be award of interest on the money. However,
considering the fact that the allotment was in 1987 and possession
given only in 1998, the compensation towards mental agony is very
low. We assume that the District Forum has awarded low
compensation for mental agony and harassment as it was also
granting interest at 15% p.a. In future compensation under these
heads must be given adequately. In this case we do not interfere as
the amount of interest of 15% per annum makes up for the
inadequate compensation granted under the heads of mental agony
and harassment. We feel that in this case the Order passed by the
District Forum is just and proper and calls for no interference. We,
therefore, set aside the Order of the National Commission and restore
that of the District Forum.
We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in
any other matter as it has been passed taking special features of the
case into account. 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 accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to
costs.