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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5869 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT: C.L. Taneja

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/2004

BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA & A.K. MATHUR

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 was allotted a plot bearing No. 1831,  Sector-14(P), Urban Estate, Hisar on 21st August 1986.  The  Respondent paid substantial amounts but the possession was not  delivered.   The Respondent then filed a complaint.   On these facts, the  District Forum awarded interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount deposited  from two years after the date of the amounts were deposited till  payment.

The State Forum dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order of  the District Forum.  The Appellants went in Revision before the National  Commission.  The National Commission dismissed the Revision filed by  the Appellants 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

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

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.  The National Commission may, if it is satisfied on  facts of a case, award compensation/damage under a head as set out in  Balbir Singh’s case (supra).  The Order of the National Commission is  accordingly set aside.

In this case possession has been offered on 1st May 1998.   Counsel has no instructions and cannot state whether possession is  taken.  The Respondent will be entitled to take possession, if not  already taken.   The Appellants shall deliver possession and not charge  any further or other amounts except registration charges and stamp  duties.

We are told that a sum of Rs.83,324/- has been paid to the  Respondent on 27th September 1999 towards interest @ 12%.   In our  view, this payment is sufficient recompense to the Respondent and no  further payment need be made to the Respondent.  If, however, any  amount has been deducted as TDS, then the Appellants shall within 15  days from date of this Order pay over to the Respondent the amount of  TDS deducted with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from date of  deduction till payment.  We so direct as it is clear that these payments  are towards compensation/damages for mental agony/harassment and  increase in costs of construction.  Thus, no TDS is deductible on these  amounts.  Appellants to file a compliance report in this Court within one  month from today.

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 directions, the Appeal stands disposed of with no order  as to costs.