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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7224 of 2002

PETITIONER: Ghaziabad Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Chander Bhan Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/08/2004

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 applied for a house in Govindpuram  Extension/Sadhna Duplex Residential Scheme.   The entire amount  was deposited.  Ultimately the Respondent was issued a reservation  letter in Karpuripuram Scheme, but even in this Scheme the  possession of the house was not delivered nor any particular house  allotted to him.  The Respondent therefore filed a complaint before the  District Forum. While the matter was pending before the District Forum the  Respondent was given an option to take a house in Govindpuram HIG  Duplex at an increased price of Rs.6,15,000/-.  The Respondent could  not afford the increased price and therefore was not willing to take the  house. The District Forum directed refund of all amounts with interest at  the rate of 18% p.a.  The State Forum dismissed the Appeal with costs  of Rs.2,000/-.  The National Forum also dismissed the Revision. In respect of Karpuripuram Scheme, this Court has, in its Order  in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh

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

(supra), held as follows: "21.    In a scheme known as "Karpuripuram Scheme" plots  were allotted, monies collected.  However, thereafter the  Scheme was cancelled.  In some of the matters we have  seen that the District Forum has recorded that the  authority could give no explanation as to why the Scheme  was cancelled.  Before us some sort of explanation is  sought to be given.  In our view, irrespective of whether  there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the monies  must be returned with interest at the rate of 18%.  We say  so because it is clear that even if the body has not already  floated another scheme on the same land it is clear that  the body is going to derive great profit from this land and  therefore compensating the allottee with interest at 18%  per annum is just and fair.

       22.     In Civil Appeal No. 7224 of 2002 the  respondent had applied for a house in a scheme floated in  1992.  He had paid the entire cost.  He had been allotted a  flat and issued a reservation letter. Yet no possession was  given.  Thereafter, in 1996 the respondent was informed  that for unavoidable reasons the house has been allotted  to somebody else and if he desires, he can obtain an  alternate flat at a much higher price.  This, therefore, is  also a case where there is absolutely no justifiable reason  why the party has not been delivered possession of the flat  which had been allotted to him nor has any offer been  made to return his money with interest.  Instead the body  has asked the party to apply for an alternate flat at a  higher rate.  In our view, on these facts the award of  interest at the rate of 18% is justified.  It is not just  interest on the amount invested but is also compensation  for the harassment and agony caused to the allottee.  We  have given these two instances only by way of  illustrations."

Thus, no interference is called for with the award of interest at the rate  of 18% p.a. as the Karipuripuram Scheme stood cancelled.         We are told that interest at the rate of 12% p.a. has been paid  vide Cheques dated 5th September, 2000 for Rs.96,000/- and dated 4th  September, 2002 for Rs.53,793/-.  The Appellants have, however,  deducted TDS.   The Appellants must now pay interest at the rate of  18% p.a. calculated from the date they received each deposit till date  of payment.  The Appellants are directed to refund the TDS amount  deducted along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. thereon to the  Respondent for reasons set out in our Judgment delivered today in  Civil Appeal No. 8400 of 2002.    Along with the payment they should  also handover a calculation sheet to the Respondent showing how they  have calculated the interest amount. 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.

       The Appeal is disposed off accordingly.