31 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

H.U.D.A. Vs SEEMA HANDA

Case number: C.A. No.-005625-005625 / 2004
Diary number: 7297 / 2003
Advocates: UGRA SHANKAR PRASAD Vs


1

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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5625 of 2004

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority                      

RESPONDENT: Seema Handa                                                      

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. 10357 of 2003]

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

       Leave granted.           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 commercial plot  bearing No. 1359, Sector 21-D, Faridabad.     As possession was not  given even though all amount had been deposited, the District Forum  directed allotment of an alternate plot No. 216, Sector 31, Faridabad  at the same rate at which the original plot was allotted.  The District  Forum also directed payment of Rs. 10,000/- as escalation in cost of  construction and on account of mental agony and harassment.  It also  directed payment of interest on the amounts deposited at the rate of  18% per annum. The State Commission maintained the order of the District  Forum, except that it waived award of Rs.10,000/- and also reduced  the rate of interest to 10%. The National Commission dismissed the Revision filed by the  Appellants on the ground that the State Commission had been very  lenient.

2

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

In our view, the Order of the State Commission is just and  proper and the National Commission was right in not interfering with  it.  We also see no reason to interfere. It could not be stated whether interest as awarded has been paid  or not and whether possession has been delivered.   The Appellants  are directed to deliver possession within a fortnight from today, if not  already delivered.  If the amount of interest has not been paid in spite  of clarification given by this Court’s Order (reported in (2004) 5 SCC  65), we feel that for this lapse the Appellants must pay interest at the  rate of 15% from 17th March, 2004 till payment.   Appellants shall also  pay costs fixed at Rs.500/- to the Legal Aid Society of the Supreme  Court.  The Appellants must recover the costs of Rs.500/- personally  from the officer/s, who was responsible for not paying even after  clarification by this Court.    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. With the above directions, the Appeal stands disposed of.