24 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

H.U.D.A. Vs MUKESH KUMAR

Case number: C.A. No.-005861-005861 / 2002
Diary number: 12572 / 2002
Advocates: Vs RR-EX-PARTE


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5861 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Mukesh Kumar

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.

       Delay condoned.

       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.  1849, Sector-14(P), Hisar on 21.8.1986.  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 @ 15% p.a. on the entire deposited amount  from the date of allotment till offer of possession.  

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.

       As has been stated in so many matters, the Order of the  National Commission cannot be sustained.  It cannot dispose of the

2

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

matters by confirming award 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 set aside.

We are informed that the Appellants have offered possession on  1st May 1998.   Counsel had no instructions whether Respondent had  taken possession or not.  Undoubtedly the Respondent will be entitled  to take possession, if he has not already taken possession.  Appellants  will deliver possession without demanding any further or other  amounts.

We are informed that the Respondent has paid a sum of  Rs.1,24,123/-.   Appellants have paid to the Respondent a sum of  Rs.24,109/- on 12th December 2003.      As we are unable to  understand and Counsel has no instructions to be able to explain on  what basis this amount of Rs.24,109/- has been paid, we direct that  Appellants shall now recalculate interest at the rate of 12% from date  of each deposit till payment.  As Appellants could not deliver  possession they are not entitled to claim interest even on delayed  payments.   If Appellants have deducted TDS, they shall now repay  that amount with interest thereon at 12% per annum from date it was  so deducted till payment.    

       Such recalculation to be made within 15 days from today and the  amounts found due and payable to the Respondent to be paid to him  within 15 days thereafter.  A compliance report to be filed in this Court  within one month from date.  A copy of the recalculation to be  annexed to the compliance report.    

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 Balbir Singh’s case (supra) in  future cases.          With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of with no  order as to costs.