SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Vs.
Vijay Aggarwal
C.A.No.5823 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
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.
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 placed 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. 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.
4. 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.
5. The District Forum has directed delivery of possession of an alternate plot
and awarded interest on the compensation amount at 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 ), 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.
10. 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.
11. The Appeal is disposed off in above terms. There will be no order as to
costs.