Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 30 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Haryana Urban Development Authority
RESPONDENT:
Raj Kumar Rathi
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2004
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 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.50,
Sector-21, Gurgaon, on 19th May, 1986. All payments were made, but
the possession was not given as the plot was under litigation and
development work could not take place. On 20th May 1997, the
Respondent was offered an alternate plot No.20 in Sector-5, Gurgaon,
but at an enhanced price. The Respondent agrees to take the
alternate plot and files a complaint challenging the enhancement of
price.
The District Forum directs payment of interest @ 10% after two
years from the date of deposit till possession is given and directs that
the alternate plot must be delivered at the original price. The District
Forum also directs that if there has been enhancement in the price of
the original plot then such enhancement could be collected but no
interest could be charged on this enhanced amount. The State
Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants. The
National Commission dismissed the revision on the ground of delay of
63 days.
In this case, the possession has already been taken by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Respondent. Interest @ 10% has also been paid on 31st July 2003.
Thus, even though we do not approve of the National Commission
dismissing the revision for a mere delay of 63 days, in our view, no
useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back. In our
view, the Order of the District Forum is just and has to be maintained.
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.
Accordingly, we dismiss the Appeal with no order as to costs.