24 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

H.U.D.A. Vs DHEER SINGH BHATTI

Case number: C.A. No.-006272-006272 / 2004
Diary number: 12217 / 2004
Advocates: KAILASH CHAND Vs


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6272 of 2004

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Dheer Singh Bhatti

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/2004

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

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

[ Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12586 of 2004 ]

S. N. VARIAVA, J.         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 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.  1212, Sector-9, Gurgaon on 9.7.1993.   The Respondent paid  substantial amounts but the possession was not delivered. The  Respondent thus filed a complaint. On these facts, the District  

Forum awarded interest as per HUDA policy and directed that the  same would be payable after two years from the date of deposits till  the date of possession.  It further directed that the possession of the  allotted plot to be delivered within one month after receipt of the copy  of Order dated 20.9.2001 of the District Forum.  

The State Forum while disposing of the Appeal directed to pay  interest @ 18% p.a. on the entire deposited amount after two years

2

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

from the date of allotment till delivery of possession.  The National  Commission relying upon the case of Haryana Urban Development  Authority v. Darsh Kumar dismissed the Revision.  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 grant of  interest in all matters irrespective of the facts of that case.  If facts of  a case so justify the National Commission may award  compensation/damages on principles set out in Balbir Singh’s case  (supra).   The Order of the National Commission is accordingly set  aside.  

In this case possession was offered on 11th June 1997 and taken  by the Respondent in 2002.   The Respondent has paid a sum of  Rs.2,93,429/-.  The Appellants have pursuant to interim Orders of this  Court paid to Respondent a sum of Rs.2,17,614/-.  This, according to  Appellants, is interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  The Appellants  have, however, deducted TDS.  The Appellants were not entitled to  deduct TDS.  The Appellants shall thus pay over to the Respondent the  amount of TDS deducted with interest thereon at the rate of 12% from  date of deduction till payment.  Save as above, the Appellants need  not pay anything more to the Appellants as, in our view, Respondent  has received sufficient recompense.

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.