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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5819 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.

RESPONDENT: S. P. Gupta

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/07/2004

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 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.  2095, Sector 17, Jagadhari, Haryana measuring 6 marlas on 16th  September, 1987.  The Respondent paid all dues including enhanced  price but was not offered possession till 10th April, 1995.  When the  Respondent went to take possession he found that the plot was  encroached upon.  There was a Khera and temple on the land.   The  Appellants could not remove the encroachment and did not allot any  alternate plot in spite of requests to do so.  After the Respondent filed  his complaint, possession of an alternate plot was offered on 28th  January, 1998.   

On these facts, the District Forum has recorded that possession  of the alternate plot would be given.  It has awarded compensation of  Rs. 20,000/- towards costs in escalation of construction, Rs. 5,000/-  for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- for costs of  proceedings.     The District Forum has also awarded interest on the  compensation amount, which remained with the Appellants from 1987  to 1998, at the rate of 15% p.a.  The District Forum has held that  some time would be taken for development and has awarded interest

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

from 5th October, 1990 till 28th January, 1998.    

The State Forum confirmed the Award.  The Respondent did not  go in Revision before the National Commission.  The Appellants went  in 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 of 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. It has correctly awarded compensation for  escalation in costs of construction, mental agony and also correctly  awarded costs.   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 in 1987 and possession  given only in 1998, the compensation towards mental agony is very  low.  We assume that the District Forum has awarded low  compensation for mental agony and harassment as it was also  granting interest at 15% p.a.  In future compensation under these  heads must be given adequately.  In this case we do not interfere as  the amount of interest of 15% per annum makes up for the  inadequate compensation granted under the heads of mental agony  and harassment.  We feel that in this case the Order passed by the  District Forum is just and proper and calls for no interference.  We,  therefore, set aside the Order of the National Commission and restore  that of the District Forum.

We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in  any other matter as it 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.

       This Appeal is accordingly allowed.  There will be no order as to  costs.