SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Vs.
A.K. Rampal
C.A.No.5826 of 2002
(S. N. Variava and Arijit Pasayat JJ.)
28.07.2004
JUDGMENT
S. N. Variava. J.
1. 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 , deprecated this practice. This
Court had held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases
irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court had 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.
2. 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.
3. In this case the Respondent was allotted a plot bearing No. 1579-P, Sector
15-11, Gurgaon, measuring 6 marlas on 27th November 1997. The Respondent made
the initial deposit. The Respondent then found that the plot was encroached
upon. The Respondent also pointed out other defects. He called upon Appellants
to remove encroachments and defects. The Appellants did not remove the
encroachment or cure the defects but called upon the Respondent to pay the
balance price. As the Respondent did not pay the balance price, the Appellants
cancelled the allotment and forfeited the deposit. The Respondent thus filed a
complaint.
4. On these facts, the District Forum has held that as the plot was encumbered
and not free of defects, the Appellants could not have forfeited the amount
deposited. The District Forum has directed refund with Interest at the rate of
15% from date of deposit till repayment.
5. The Respondent filed an Appeal. The State Forum confirmed the Award. The
Respondent filed a Revision before the National Commission. The Appellants also
went in Revision before the National Commission. The National Commission has
increased the rate of interest to 18% p.a.
6. 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. However, during argument Counsel for the parties
have shown us all relevant papers and documents. The Respondent had also
demanded costs for mental agony and harassment. Nothing has been awarded under
that head. Considering the fact that the Appellants allotted a plot which had
been encroached upon and which in other respect was defective they should have
allotted some other plot or got encroachment removed and defects cured. Instead
they acted in a high handed manner by cancelling allotment and forfeiting the
deposit. There has been mental agony and harassment. We are told that the
monies, along with interest at the rate of 12%, have been repaid. In our view,
interest of justice will be met if Appellants are directed to pay interest at
the rate of 15% p.a. from date of deposit till repayment. Also
considering the fact that Appellants have unnecessarily dragged the Respondent
through the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and this Court,
they must pay to Respondent cost fixed at Rs. 15,000/-.
7. We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other
matter as it has been passed by 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.
8. This Appeal is accordingly disposed off. There will be no order as to costs.