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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7029 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority                              

RESPONDENT: Smt. Priti Chawla                                                           

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.  1833, Sector 17, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, on 6th June, 1987.  It turned  out that that plot was, in the plan, earmarked for a road.  The  Respondent paid all dues but was not offered possession of any  alternate plot.   On these facts, the District Forum directed to deliver  an alternate plot at the same price and to pay interest @ 15% from  the date of deposit till the date of the offer of possession of alternate  plot.  

The State Forum upheld the order of the District Forum and, in  addition, directed the Appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as  compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction,  Rs.20,000/- as compensation for monetary loss and mental agony and  Rs.2,000/- as costs.  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

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

Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra), the order of the  National Commission cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.      In this case, the Appellant have paid interest @ 12% only on 5th June,  2003.  They have delivered possession of an alternate plot bearing No.  826, Sector 17, Urban Estate, Gurgaon on 18th October, 2000.  As the  allotment was in 1987 and possession given only in 2000, the  Respondent has suffered mental agony and harassment.  Award of  Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental loss and mental agony and  the award of Rs.2,000/- as costs are proper.   Possession is now given  at the old rate. The Respondent has got benefit of escalation in price of  land.    We agree that there should be an award for escalation in the  costs of construction.  However, it appears to us that the basis for  such award should be as per CPWD rates.  We thus set aside the  award of Rs.2 lacs and direct District Forum to work out and award to  Respondent escalation as per CPWD rate.  Save as above Order of  State Forum is confirmed.  In this case, Respondent has got land at  old rates.  She has been awarded compensation for mental agony and  harassment.  She has been awarded costs of escalation in  construction.  Thus normally only a nominal rate of interest on money  lying with Appellants should have been granted.  However, as interest  at 12% has already been paid, on the principle set out in Ghaziabad  Development Authorities case (supra), Appellants shall not be entitled  to claim refund.  We, therefore, maintain award of interest at 12%.  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.