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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5796 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Darsh Kumar, etc. etc.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/07/2004

BENCH: S. N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs., 5822/02, 5821/02, 5825/02,  5873/02, 7563/02 and 1835/03)

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 these cases the Respondents were allotted plots long back.   The Respondents paid all dues. They were not offered possession due  to some reason or other.  In some cases, the Complainants were then  offered alternate plots, but a much higher price was claimed.  The  concerned Respondent was not willing to pay the higher price and  asked for allotment of an alternate plot either in the original Sector or  any other Sector but at the original price.  This was not complied with  thus the Respondents filed complaints.     On these facts, the District Forum directed that where the  Appellants are not in a position to give possession of the plot allotted  they must give an alternate plot at the original price.  We are in full  agreement with this view and hold that wherever a body, like the  Appellants, is not in a position to deliver possession of the allotted  plot, they must offer an alternate plot immediately at the same price.  

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

The alternate plot must be in the same Sector or near thereto.         The District Forum has directed delivery of possession, in some  cases, of an alternate plot, and awarded interest on the compensation  amount at the rates of 15% or 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till  date possession is given.  We are told that possession has been given  in some cases as late as in 2002.         The State Forum confirmed the Award in the Appeal filed by the  Appellants.  The Appellants filed a Revision before the National  Commission.  The National Commission has increased the rate of  interest to 18% p.a.          For reasons set out in the Judgment in the case Ghaziabad  Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (supra), the order of the  National Commission cannot be sustained.  As stated above, the  relevant papers regarding the claim made, the affidavits filed, the  evidence submitted before the District Forum are not produced before  this Court.  In this case, the District Forum has ensured that the  possession is given at the old rate.  Where possession is given at old  rate the party has got benefit of escalation in price of land, thus there  cannot and should not also be award of interest on the money.   However, considering the fact that the allotment was far back and  possession given very late, compensation towards mental  agony/harassment should have been awarded.  Compensation would  also be awarded for escalation in costs of construction.  In future  compensation must be given under these heads.          In this case, considering the very long period during which no  possession was given, on an ad hoc basis, we direct that for mental  agony/harassment and for increase in costs of construction,  compensation at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till date of  possession be awarded.                 We are informed that in spite of there being no stay, to payment  of interest beyond 12% and in spite of clarification given by this  Court’s order (reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65), the amounts have still  not been paid.  We feel that for the lapse Appellants must pay interest  at the rate of 15% from 17th March, 2004 till payment.  Appellants  shall also pay costs fixed at Rs.500/- in each case to the Legal Aid  Society of the Supreme Court.  The Appellants must recover the  amount paid towards costs personally from the officer/s, who were  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 has been passed taking special features  of the case into account.  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.           The Appeals are disposed off in above terms.  There will be no  order as to costs.