IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                  CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6346  OF 2002   

 H.P. Housing Board ..   Appellant(s)

                    Versus

Janak Gupta ..   Respondent(s)                                         WITH

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6352 of 2002    

   Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban   ..  Appellant (s)     Development Authority

                     Versus

   R.P. Kapur                           ..  Respondent(s)

        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6349 OF 2002          Himachal Pradesh Housing Board       ..  Appellant (s)

              Versus

   S.K. Monga                           ..  Respondent(s)                                     O R D E R

1. These  appeals  by  Himachal  Pradesh  Housing  Board/  Himachal  Pradesh

Housing and Urban Development Authority are directed against final order dated

18th April, 2002 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission,

New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `Commission'), awarding  

..2/-

CA 6346/2002 Etc...contd.

: 2 :

to  the  complainants  before it  interest  @ 18 per cent   per annum on the  amount

deposited, for a period of one year, on account of delay in delivery of the possession of

the flats allotted to the applicants.

2. Since  a  common  issue  is  involved  in  all  these  appeals,  these  are  being

disposed of by this order.  

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Commission has

awarded interest at a flat rate of 18 per cent per annum in all the cases by placing

reliance on its order in the case of  Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh

Kumar (R.P.  1197/1998).   Learned counsel points  out  that  the view taken by the

Commission  in  the  said  case  has  not  been  accepted  by  this  Court  in  Ghaziabad

Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh-I, (2004) 5 SCC 65.

5. In Balbir Singh's case, this Court, while disapproving the award of interest

at a flat rate of 18% granted by the Commission, has held that the question of award

of interest is to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and interest

cannot be awarded in all cases at a uniform rate of 18 per cent per annum, as was

done in Darsh Kumar's case.   Yet  again,  in  Ghaziabad Development  Authority  vs.

Balbir Singh-II, (2005) 9 SCC 573, the same question has been  

..3/-

CA 6346/2002 Etc..contd..

: 3 :

considered again and the view expressed in Balbir Singh's-(I) case (supra) has been

reiterated.  It has been observed as follows :

"Learned Senior Counsel submits that in case of delivery of possession, albeit belatedly, the rate of interest could be different from non-delivery of  possession/cancellation  of  scheme/offer of  alternative plots/flats at  higher price which has already been dealt  with by this Court  in  Balbir  Singh  case.   Normally,  a  case  of  delivery  of possession,though belatedly,  stands  on a different footing  from non- delivery of possession at all because in case of delivery of possession, though  belatedly,  the  allottee  also  enjoys  the  benefit  of  plot/flat. Generally, in such a situation the rate of interest,  should not exceed 12%.  However, as already observed by this Court in Balbir Singh case no hard-and-fast rules can be laid down.  In a specific case where it is found that delay was culpable and there is no contributory negligence by  the  allottee  resulting  in  harassment/injury,  both  mental  and physical, the Forum/Commission would not be precluded from making an award in  excess  of  12% interest  per annum.   Such order must, however, be supported with reasons."  

6. We may note that in Haryana Urban Development Auhority vs. Darsh Kumar

(2005)  9 SCC 449,  this  Court has  said that  in  future the Forum/Commission will

follow the principles laid down by it in the case of Balbir Singh-I(supra).   

7. In  the  light  of  the  aforenoted  decisions,  the  order  of  the  Commission,

awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum cannot be sustained.  We are of the

view that having regard   to   the  facts and the circumstances of the instant  

..4/-

CA 6346/2002 Etc..contd..

: 4 :

case, award of interest  @ 12% per annum would meet the ends of justice.  We may

note that while granting leave, it was ordered that interim stay of the impugned order

will be subject to payment of interest @ 12%.  Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that interest @ 12% per annum has already been paid to the respondents.

8. Resultantly, the appeals are partly allowed and the order of the Commission

is modified to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.            

                                       ...................J.            [ D.K. JAIN ]  

                                       ...................J.                                     [ R.M. LODHA ]                         

                              NEW DELHI, MARCH 26, 2009.