31 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

H.U.D.A. Vs SATISH KUMAR

Case number: C.A. No.-005620-005620 / 2004
Diary number: 18119 / 2003
Advocates: KAILASH CHAND Vs P. N. PURI


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5620 of 2004

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.               

RESPONDENT: Satish Kumar                                                     

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 (C) No. 20161 of 2003]

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

       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 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. 447  in Sector 12, Gurgaon in the year 1986.  Even though all amounts had  been deposited, the possession was not given to him. On 21st May  1996 he was offered an alternate plot in Sector 5, Gurgaon.  But an  enhanced price was demanded from him. The Respondent thus filed a  complaint.   

       The District Forum by its Order dated 12th December 1997  directed the Appellants to deliver the alternate plot at the same price  at which the original plot was allotted to him.  The District Forum  directed the payment of interest @ 15% p.a.     The State Forum in the  Appeal filed by the Appellants maintained the Order of the District  Forum, save and except it directed that the interest would be payable  after two years of the date of deposit.         The National Commission  dismissed the revision on the ground of delay of 1727 days.

2

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

       We are told that interest @ 15% has been paid on 3rd May 2000.   We are informed that possession has already been delivered of the  alternate plot on 30th December 2002.  In our view, the Order of the  State Forum was just and equitable and requires no interference.   Further, we also see no reason why the inordinate delay of 1727 days  in filing the revision before the National Commission should be  condoned.       We, therefore, dismiss the Appeal with no order as to  costs.

       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.