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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3419 of 2003

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority                      

RESPONDENT: Krishna Goel                                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/2004

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT

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.  2099, Sector 23, Sonepat, vide Memo dated 29th August, 1991.    The  Respondent paid all dues.   But the possession was offered.   

On these facts, the District Forum directed to deliver physical  possession of plot in 6 months.   The District Forum further directed to  pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 88,750/- to the complainant.  It  also directed the Appellants to further pay interest compensation at  the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,86,088/- w.e.f. 18th  November, 1998 till the offer of possession.  The District Forum also  awarded Rs, 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and  harassment and Rs. 1,000/- for costs of proceedings.  

The State Forum, whilst maintaining the rest of the order of the  District Forum, reduced the amount of compensation awarded for  mental agony and harassment from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,000/-.   The  Respondent did not go in Revision before the National Commission.   The Appellants went in Revision before the National Commission.  The  National Commission has increased the rate of interest to 18% p.a.  

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

       For reasons set out in the Judgment in the case of Ghaziabad  Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra), the order of the  National Commission cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.  As  stated above, the relevant papers regarding the claim made, the  affidavits filed, the evidence submitted before the District Forum are  not produced before this Court.   In this case, the Appellant have on  24th April 2000 paid interest @ 12%.  They have also offered  possession on 29th September 1998 but Respondent has as yet not  taken possession.  In our view, the correct rate of interest would be  12% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment.   We order accordingly.   As the interest @ 12% had already been paid to the Respondent, we  feel that no further orders are required in this case, save and except  that the Appellant shall now pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards mental  agony and harassment and also pay the costs of Rs. 1,000/- within  two weeks from today.  The Respondent is entitled to liberty to take  possession of the plot.  If the Appellant do not give possession to the  Respondent without claiming any further amount, the Respondent is at  liberty to approach this Court.   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.         This Appeal is disposed of accordingly.