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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5826 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

RESPONDENT: A. K. Rampal

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.  1579-P, Sector 15-11, Gurgaon, measuring 6 marlas on 27th November  1997.  The Respondent made the initial deposit.  The Respondent then  found that the plot was encroached upon.  The Respondent also  pointed out other defects.  He called upon Appellants to remove  encroachments and defects. The Appellants did not remove the  encroachment or cure the defects but called upon the Respondent to  pay the balance price. As the Respondent did not pay the balance  price, the Appellants cancelled the allotment and forfeited the deposit.   The Respondent thus filed a complaint.  On these facts, the District Forum has held that as the plot was  encumbered and not free of defects, the Appellants could not have  forfeited the amount deposited.  The District Forum has directed  refund with interest at the rate of 15% from date of deposit till  repayment.  The Respondent filed an Appeal.  The State Forum confirmed the  Award.  The Respondent filed a Revision before the National  Commission.  The Appellants also went in Revision before the National  Commission.  The National Commission has increased the rate of  interest to 18% p.a.  

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

       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.  However, during argument Counsel for the parties have  shown us all relevant papers and documents.  The Respondent had  also demanded costs for mental agony and harassment.  Nothing has  been awarded under that head.  Considering the fact that the  Appellants allotted a plot which had been encroached upon and which  in other respect was defective they should have allotted some other  plot or got encroachment removed and defects cured.  Instead they  acted in a high handed manner by cancelling allotment and forfeiting  the deposit.  There has been mental agony and harassment.  We are  told that the monies, along with interest at the rate of 12%, have been  repaid.  In our view, interest of justice will be met if Appellants are  directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from date of deposit till  repayment.  Also considering the fact that Appellants have  unnecessarily dragged the Respondent through the District Forum,  State Forum, National Commission and this Court, they must pay to  Respondent cost fixed at Rs.15,000/-.     We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in  any other matter as it has been passed by 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 disposed off.  There will be no order as  to costs.