31 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

H.U.D.A. Vs NAVDEEP CHAUDHARY

Case number: C.A. No.-005621-005621 / 2004
Diary number: 11732 / 2003
Advocates: KAILASH CHAND Vs


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5621 of 2004

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority                              

RESPONDENT: Navdeep Chaudhary                                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2004

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP ) No.13904 of 2003)

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

       Delay condoned.         Special 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 placed 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. 553  in Sector-45, Gurgaon, on 2nd February 1998.  At the time of allotment  price of plot was fixed at Rs.6,80,262/-.  It was then enchanced to  Rs.9,57,117/- pursuant to an Award of a Court.  However, the High  Court thereafter reduced the Award and by the reduction the price  became Rs.6,53,400/-.  The Appellants did not recalculate the price in  terms of High Court Award and did not also carry out development  work.  As the possession was not being delivered at the correct price  the Respondent filed a complaint.   

       The District Forum by its Order dated 24th December 2001,  awarded interest @ 15% after two years from the date of deposit till  the offer of possession.  It also awarded Rs. 2 lacs as escalation in the  cost of construction and a further amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs. The  State Commission increased the rate of interest from 15% to 18%, but

2

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

set aside the Award of Rs. 2 lacs.      The National Commission has  dismissed the revision.         We are told that interest @ 12% has been paid and/or is  adjusted against the amount payable by the Respondent.  Possession  has also been offered on 15th March 2001.  In our view, as the  possession is being delivered, interest @ 12% is sufficient.  We,  therefore, maintain the Order of the State Commission, save and  except that interest shall be paid @ 12%.  The Appellants to forthwith  pay to the Respondent the sum of Rs.25,000/- and balance payment  of interest @ 12%, if any, remaining payable.  The Respondent is at  liberty to take possession. The Appellants to inform the Respondent  that he can take possession at the rate of Rs.6,53,400/-.         The Appellants shall deliver possession without demanding any  higher amount.  They can however insist on registration charges being  paid.             We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in  any other matter as it has been passed by 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 off with no  order as to costs.