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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5823 of 2002

PETITIONER: Haryana Urban Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Vijay Aggarwal

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 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. 19,  Sector 12-A, Gurgaon, in the year 1986.  The Respondent paid all  dues. The plot allotted turned out to be under litigation thus  Complainant was not offered possession. The Complainant was then  offered alternate plot No.30-P, Sector-9, Gurgaon, but a much higher  price was claimed.  Respondent was not willing to pay the higher price  and asked for allotment of an alternate plot in original Sector at  original price.  This was not complied with thus Respondent filed a  complaint.     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.  The  alternate plot must be in the same Sector or near thereto.         The District Forum has directed delivery of possession of an  alternate plot and awarded interest on the compensation amount at

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

the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of deposit till date possession is  given.  We are told that possession was given only in 2002.         The State Forum confirmed the Award in the Appeal filed by the  Appellants.  The Respondent did not go in Revision before the National  Commission.  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 in 1986 and  possession given only in 2002, 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 interest amount has  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/- 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 this 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 Appeal is disposed off in above terms.  There will be no  order as to costs.