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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5867 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Shital Parshad Jain

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 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, one Smt. Bhagwanti was allotted Plot No.158-P in  Sector-15A, Panchkula, on 18th October, 1985.  As per the allotment  order the area of plot was 502 sq. yds.  All amounts were paid.  By  letter dated 17th April 1986 the Estate Officer of the Appellants  informed the allottee that the actual area was 647.67 sq. yds. and that  extra payment had to be made.  These were also paid.  Subsequently,  the plot has been transferred to other person.  In all re-allotment  letters the area of the plot is shown as 647.67 sq. yds.  Then the plot  was transferred to the Respondent.   The Respondent wanted to  further transfer.  Now the Estate Officer, by letter dated 22nd May,  1992, claims that the area of the plot is 576.88 sq. yds. and,  therefore, no permission for transfer of 647.67 sq. yds. can be given.   Thus the Respondent filed a complaint.            The District Forum has held and, in our view correctly, that there  is gross deficiency in service.  The District Forum directed refund of  extra amount collected with interest at 18% p.a.  The District Forum  also awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony.          The State Forum in the Appeal filed by the Appellants reduced  the rate of interest to 12% and compensation to Rs.5,000/-.  The

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

Respondent did not go in Revision before the National Commission.   The Appellants filed a 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 Ghaziabad  Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra) the order of the  National Commission cannot be sustained.  We feel that the State  Forum wrongly reduced the amount of compensation awarded for  mental agony and harassment.  However, as the Respondent did not  file any Revision and has not appeared before us, we do not interfere  with that Award.  In our view, in cases like this where monies are  directed to be refunded, interest should be as per the Interest Act.  We  do not have any material before us to divide as to what the interest  rates were at the relevant time.  We, therefore, think it appropriate  not to interfere with the order of the State Forum.             We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in  any other matter as it has been 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.           The Appeal is accordingly allowed.  The order of the National  Commission is set aside and that of the State Forum restored.  There  will be no order as to costs.