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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  30 of 2004

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority                              

RESPONDENT: Raj Kumar Rathi                                                       

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2004

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 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.50,  Sector-21, Gurgaon, on 19th May, 1986.  All payments were made, but  the possession was not given as the plot was under litigation and  development work could not take place.  On 20th May 1997, the  Respondent was offered an alternate plot No.20 in Sector-5, Gurgaon,  but at an enhanced price.  The Respondent agrees to take the  alternate plot and files a complaint challenging the enhancement of  price.          The District Forum directs payment of interest @ 10% after two  years from the date of deposit till possession is given and directs that  the alternate plot must be delivered at the original price.  The District  Forum also directs that if there has been enhancement in the price of  the original plot then such enhancement could be collected but no  interest could be charged on this enhanced amount. The State  Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants.  The  National Commission dismissed the revision on the ground of delay of  63 days.         In this case, the possession has already been taken by the

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

Respondent.  Interest @ 10% has also been paid on 31st July 2003.   Thus, even though we do not approve of the National Commission  dismissing the revision for a mere delay of 63 days, in our view, no  useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back.  In our  view, the Order of the District Forum is just and has to be maintained.           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.            Accordingly, we dismiss the Appeal with no order as to costs.