31 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

H.U.D.A. Vs AMARJIT KAUR

Case number: C.A. No.-005619-005619 / 2004
Diary number: 11606 / 2003
Advocates: KAILASH CHAND Vs


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5619 of 2004

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.                       

RESPONDENT: Smt. Amarjit Kaur                                                              

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2004

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP ) No.13898 of 2003)

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

       Delay condoned.

       Special leave granted.

       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 the Respondent was allotted a plot bearing No.  1162, Sector 14 (Part), Hisar, on 4th June 1991.  Substantial payments  had been made but the possession was not delivered as development  work had not taken place.  The Respondent filed the complaint before  the District Forum.   

       The District Forum by its Order dated 2nd June 1998 directed  payment of interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date  of offer of possession.         The State Forum, in the Appeal filed by the  Appellants, reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 15% and directed  interest to be payable after two years of the date of deposit.    The  National Forum disposed of the revision in terms of its Judgment in  HUDA vs. Darsh Kumar.

2

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

       The Order of the National Forum cannot be sustained for reasons  set out in our Judgment in the case Ghaziabad Development Authority  vs. Balbir Singh (supra).  Each case has to be decided on the facts of  that case.  Award of interest at the rate of 18% irrespective of the  facts of the case cannot be justified.

       In this case, possession has been offered by a letter dated 12th  November 1997 and interest @ 12% has been paid.  However, TDS  appears to have been deducted.  We direct that the Respondent shall  be entitled to take possession without any increase or escalation being  claimed from him.  The Appellants to inform the Respondent that he  can take possession.  As the possession is being delivered to the  Respondent, in our view, interest @ 12% is sufficient.  The Appellants  shall, however, pay to the Respondent the amount of TDS, which have  been deducted, with interest @ 12% from the date the amount was so  deducted till payment.   

       We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in  any other matter as it has been passed by 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 directions, the Appeal stands disposed off with no  order as to costs.