Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2378 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Haryana Urban Development Authority
RESPONDENT:
R.S. Banga
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. 477-
P, Mela Ground Area, Hisar vide letter no. 8688 dated 24th June, 1992.
The Respondent paid all dues. But the possession was not offered.
On these facts, the District Forum directed to refund the amount
deposited along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till
realization.
The State Forum reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 15%
and directed to pay the same after two years from the date of deposit.
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
stated above, the relevant papers regarding the claim made, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
affidavits filed, the evidence submitted before the District Forum are
not produced before this Court. In this case, the Appellants have
already paid interest @ 15% p.a. In this case, considering the fact
that possession has still not been taken by the Respondent and
interest @ 15% has already been paid, the same cannot be recovered
as set out in our above-mentioned Order. Thus, we maintain the rate
of interest directed by the State Forum. The Respondent is at liberty
to take possession of the plot. If Respondent asks for possession
Appellants shall deliver possession forthwith. If the Appellants do not
give possession the Respondent is at liberty to approach this Court. In
event Respondent does not want to take possession he shall intimate,
within 2 months from the date of the Order, that he does not want
possession and that he would want refund of his amounts. In that
event Appellants shall refund the amounts deposited by the
Respondent to him without any deductions whatsoever.
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.