27 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs RAJESH CHANDRA

Case number: C.A. No.-008418-008418 / 2002
Diary number: 63623 / 2002
Advocates: T. MAHIPAL Vs RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  8418 of 2002

PETITIONER: Ghaziabad Development Authority  

RESPONDENT: Rajesh Chandra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/09/2004

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & B. P. SINGH

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 Shop on 30.10.1995 in  Commercial Scheme Kaushambi, 1994 of the Appellants and the value  of the shop was Rs.1,20,000/-.  The Respondent deposited the entire  amount with the Appellants, but the possession of the shop was not  delivered, while the possession has been given to other allottees. The  Respondent filed a Complaint before the District Forum.  On these  facts, the District Forum directed the Appellants to handover the  physical possession of the shop within three months from the date of  order after constructing the shop along with interest at the rate of  18% p.a. from 1.1.1997 till the date of possession and awarded a sum  of Rs.2,000/- as cost and damages. It further directed that if the Order  is not complied with within the said period, the Appellants shall pay  interest at the rate of 21% p.a.

Aggrieved by this Order, the Appellants filed an Appeal before  the State Forum challenging the Order of the District Forum.  The  State Forum partly allowed the Appeal modifying the order of the  District Forum to the extent that it directed that the interest, at the

2

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

rate of 18% p.a., only shall be payable from 13.8.1997 till the date of  delivery of possession and imposed a cost of Rs.2,000/- on the  Appellants.  The Appellants went in Revision before the National  Commission.  The National Commission dismissed the Revision relying  upon its own decision in the case of Haryana Urban Development  Authority v. Darsh Kumar and observing that interest @ 18% p.a. has  been allowed by them under similar circumstances.        

As has been stated in so many matters, the Order of the  National Commission cannot be sustained.  It cannot dispose of the  matters by confirming award of interest in all matters irrespective of  the facts of that case.  It must, on facts of a case, award  compensation/damage under appropriate heads if it comes to the  conclusion that such award is justified/necessary. Accordingly, the  Order of the National Commission is set aside.

       We are informed that now possession of a shop is offered to the  Respondent but a higher rate is being claimed.  We find that before  the State Forum a claim was made that Respondent must pay a higher  rate.  The State Forum did not direct Respondent to pay a higher  amount.  The State Forum instead confirmed the Order of the District  Forum.   Neither before the National Commission nor in the Appeal  before us, is there any challenge or ground that the State Forum erred  in not directing payment of higher amount.  As there is no challenge  we cannot permit oral submissions to the contrary.

       We therefore direct that Respondent shall be given possession of  the shop within two weeks from today without claiming any further or  other amounts.  As Respondent is getting the shop at the old rate, in  our view, interest at the rate of 12% would be sufficient.  The interest  amount shall also be paid within two weeks from today, if not already  paid.  If however interest at a higher rate is already paid, then on  principles set out by us in the case of Ghaziabad Development  Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra), no refund will be claimed.   

       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.          With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of with no  order as to costs.