http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6548 of 2002

PETITIONER: Ghaziabad Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Subhash 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 of 90 Sq. Mtr.  under Karpuripuram Scheme in the year 1991.  The Respondent paid  all dues.  Yet possession was not offered.  The Respondent thus filed a  complaint.

The District Forum has directed delivery of possession and  awarded interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 18% p.a.  from 1st July, 1994 till date possession is given.  The District Forum  has also directed payment of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental  agony. The Appellants appealed to the State Forum. We are informed  that pending Appeal the Appellants deposited not just the amounts  awarded but also the amounts paid by the Respondent to them.

The State Forum confirmed the Award in the Appeal filed by the  Appellants.   The Respondent did not go in Revision before the National

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Commission. The Appellants filed a Revision before the National  Commission.  For the first time they now claimed that the  Karpuripuram Scheme was cancelled.  The National Commission has  not dealt with the aspect of cancellation of Scheme but 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 in that Order in  cases where the Scheme is cancelled interest must be paid at the rate  of 18%.  The Respondent is thus entitled to get back his money with  interest at the rate of 18% p.a.  In this case the Appellants have  deposited the amount in the District Forum on 12th February, 1994.    The Respondent has not withdrawn the amount as, according to him,  the Order of the District Forum was to give possession and pay  interest.  He correctly submits that the Appellants could not have,  contrary to the Order of the District Forum, chosen to not give  possession and seek to return amounts paid by depositing the same in  the District Forum.  We find that the Appellants, on their own,  deposited all amounts, without any Order of any Forum.  They did not  even point out, in the pending Appeal before the State Forum, that the  Scheme was cancelled.   The State Forum in its Order also directs  delivery of possession.  Thus by deposit, contrary to Orders of the  District and State Forums, the Appellants cannot get any benefit.  We  have by our earlier Order permitted cancellation of Scheme on  payment of interest at 18%.  The Respondent must thus get interest  till he receives his monies.  We therefore permit Respondent to  withdraw the monies deposited.  He must do so within one week from  date of this Order.  If the District Forum has invested the amounts  then Respondent will be entitled to the accrued interest also.  If the  amounts are lying uninvested, then Appellants will pay to the  Respondent interest at the rate of 12% from 12th February, 1999 till  date the monies are withdrawn by the Respondent.   

We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in  any other matter having been passed on account of the 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.

       If amounts deposited with the District/State Forum are lying  uninvested, they must automatically invest these amounts in  nationalized banks and keep them invested till they have to be  returned / paid out.    This Appeal is disposed off in above terms.  The Appellants will  pay to the Respondent costs of this Appeal fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.