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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5868 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Munshi Ram

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. 273,  Sector-14(P), Hisar on 21.8.1986.   The Respondent paid substantial  amounts but the possession was not delivered.  Thus the Respondent  filed a complaint. On these facts, the District Forum awarded interest  @ 15% p.a. on the entire deposited amount from the date of deposit  till offer of possession.  

The State Forum confirmed the Order of the District Forum but  reduced interest to 15%.  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 awarded by them under  similar circumstances.  

       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 award of interest in all matters irrespective of

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

the facts of that case.  If the 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  accordingly stands set aside.

In this case possession has been given.  Appellants have also  paid a sum of Rs.23,140/- on 23rd July 2004.  However, whilst paying  this amount they have deducted TDS.   As these are payments  towards compensation/damages for mental agony and harassment  TDS      could not have been deducted.    The Appellants shall pay to the  Respondent within one month from date of this Order the amount  deducted as TDS with interest thereon at 12% from date of deduction  till payment.  In our view the payment already made and the refund of  TDS amount will be 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 Balbir Singh’s case (supra) in  future cases.

With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of with no  order as to costs.