31 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

H.U.D.A. Vs SURINDER KUMAR GOEL

Case number: C.A. No.-005622-005622 / 2004
Diary number: 8726 / 2003
Advocates: KAILASH CHAND Vs


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5622 of 2004

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority                              

RESPONDENT: Surinder Kumar Goel

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2004

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP ) No.13900 of 2003)

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

       Delay condoned.         Special leave granted.         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.  2724 in Sector 23/23A (II), Gurgaon, on 11th August 1986.  Even  though, all the amounts had been paid, the possession was not  delivered to the Respondent.  The Respondent, therefore, filed the  complaint before the District Forum.   

       The District Forum by its Order dated 22nd March 1999 awarded  interest @ 18% p.a.     The State Commission in its Order dated 28th  October 1999 confirmed the Order of the District Forum.  The National  Commission disposed of the revision in terms of its Judgment in HUDA  vs. Darsh Kumar.

       As has been stated in so many matters, the Order of the  National Commission cannot be sustained. It cannot dispose of the

2

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

matters by awarding interest @ 18% in all matters irrespective of the  facts of that case.  It is accordingly set aside. We are told that possession has already been offered on 17th  March 1997 and interest @ 12% has been paid.  In our view, as the  possession is being delivered to the Respondent, interest @ 12% is  sufficient.   We, therefore, direct that the Respondent will be entitled to  take possession. The Appellants to inform the Respondent that he can  take possession.  The Appellants not to claim further or any amount  from the Respondent, except registration charges.  If TDS has been  deducted, the Appellants to pay to the Respondent within two weeks  the amount of TDS deducted with interest thereon @ 12% from the  date TDS was deducted till payment.  

       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.   

       With these directions, the Appeal stands disposed off with no  order as to costs.