Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Rekha Sharma
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3410 of 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 1097 of 2002)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 1097 of 2002)
Petitioner: Haryana Urban Development Authority
Respondent: Rekha Sharma
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3410 of 2003
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 1097 of 2002)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No. 1097 of 2002)
Judges: S.N. VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 08, 2004
Appearances:
Mr. Satinder Singh Gulati, Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati and Mr. Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Advocate, (N.P) for the Respondent.
Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Advocate, (N.P) for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Deficiency in service – Housing Boards/Development Authorities – Allotment of flats/plots to applicants – Deficiency in services – Allotment of plot in 1986 – Possession however not offered in spite of the applicant having paid all dues – On a complaint by the allottee District Forum while directing possession of alternate plot at the original price directing payment of 10 per cent interest on the amounts deposited for the period commencing from the expiry of two years from the date of deposit till the date of delivery – State Commission upholding such order – National Commission however enhancing the interest to 18 per cent. Validity. Held that the order of National Commission is not maintainable for reasons set out in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (JT 2004 (5) SC 17). Where possession is given at old rates, the party having obtained the benefit of escalation cannot claim interest on the money. On facts however in view of the long delay in offering possession and in view of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the allottee interest at the rate of 12 per cent paid by the authority to the allottee directed to be taken as compensation for mental agony and harassment. For the delay in the payment in spite of the clarifications given by the Supreme Court interest at the rate of 15 per cent directed to be paid from the date of the order till the date of payment. Also Authorities directed to execute the conveyance to enable the allottee to commence construction. (Paras 6,7,8, and 9)
Deficiency in service – Housing Boards/Development Authorities – Allotment of flats/plots to applicants – Deficiency in services – Allotment of plot in 1986 – Possession however not offered in spite of the applicant having paid all dues – On a complaint by the allottee District Forum while directing possession of alternate plot at the original price directing payment of 10 per cent interest on the amounts deposited for the period commencing from the expiry of two years from the date of deposit till the date of delivery – State Commission upholding such order – National Commission however enhancing the interest to 18 per cent. Validity. Held that the order of National Commission is not maintainable for reasons set out in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (JT 2004 (5) SC 17). Where possession is given at old rates, the party having obtained the benefit of escalation cannot claim interest on the money. On facts however in view of the long delay in offering possession and in view of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the allottee interest at the rate of 12 per cent paid by the authority to the allottee directed to be taken as compensation for mental agony and harassment. For the delay in the payment in spite of the clarifications given by the Supreme Court interest at the rate of 15 per cent directed to be paid from the date of the order till the date of payment. Also Authorities directed to execute the conveyance to enable the allottee to commence construction. (Paras 6,7,8, and 9)
Cases Reffered:
1. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (JT 2004 (5) SC 17) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
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 v. Balbir Singh1, 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 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. 211, Sector 12A, Gurgaon vide memo dated 23rd January, 1986. The respondent paid all dues but was not offered possession.
4. On these facts, the District Forum directed to deliver an alternate plot at the same price and to pay interest @ 10%, as per HUDA policy, after two years from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of physical possession of alternate plot.
5. The State Forum upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. 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.
6. For reasons set out in the judgment in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra), the order of the National Commission cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 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 appellant have paid interest @ 12 only on 28th July, 2004. They have delivered possession of an alternate plot bearing no. 1269, Sector 45, Gurgaon in 2003. The District Forum has not awarded compensation for mental agony and harassment. Where possession is given at old rate, the party has got benefit of escalation in price of land. Thus, normally there should not also be award of interest on the money deposited. However, as the allotment was in 1986 and possession given only in 2003 the respondent has suffered mental agony and harassment and the costs of construction has gone up, the respondent should have been compensated for these. We thus take it that the interest awarded and paid is towards compensation on these counts.
7. In spite of there being no stay, to payment of interest beyond 12% and in spite of clarification given by this Court’s order (Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra)), the amounts were only paid on 28th July, 2004. We feel that for the lapse appellants must pay interest at the rate of 15% from 17th March, 2004 till 28th July, 2004. Appellants shall also pay costs fixed at Rs. 500/- 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.
8. A complaint is made that the appellants are not executing the sale deed and are not give permission to construct. We, therefore, direct the appellants to execute the sale deed and to give permission to construct without claiming any amounts whatsoever, except the registration charges, from the respondent. The same is to be done within one month from today.
9. We clarify that this order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter as the order is being passed taking into account special features of the case. The forum/commission will follow the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra) in future cases.
10. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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 v. Balbir Singh1, 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 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. 211, Sector 12A, Gurgaon vide memo dated 23rd January, 1986. The respondent paid all dues but was not offered possession.
4. On these facts, the District Forum directed to deliver an alternate plot at the same price and to pay interest @ 10%, as per HUDA policy, after two years from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of physical possession of alternate plot.
5. The State Forum upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. 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.
6. For reasons set out in the judgment in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra), the order of the National Commission cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 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 appellant have paid interest @ 12 only on 28th July, 2004. They have delivered possession of an alternate plot bearing no. 1269, Sector 45, Gurgaon in 2003. The District Forum has not awarded compensation for mental agony and harassment. Where possession is given at old rate, the party has got benefit of escalation in price of land. Thus, normally there should not also be award of interest on the money deposited. However, as the allotment was in 1986 and possession given only in 2003 the respondent has suffered mental agony and harassment and the costs of construction has gone up, the respondent should have been compensated for these. We thus take it that the interest awarded and paid is towards compensation on these counts.
7. In spite of there being no stay, to payment of interest beyond 12% and in spite of clarification given by this Court’s order (Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra)), the amounts were only paid on 28th July, 2004. We feel that for the lapse appellants must pay interest at the rate of 15% from 17th March, 2004 till 28th July, 2004. Appellants shall also pay costs fixed at Rs. 500/- 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.
8. A complaint is made that the appellants are not executing the sale deed and are not give permission to construct. We, therefore, direct the appellants to execute the sale deed and to give permission to construct without claiming any amounts whatsoever, except the registration charges, from the respondent. The same is to be done within one month from today.
9. We clarify that this order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter as the order is being passed taking into account special features of the case. The forum/commission will follow the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra) in future cases.
10. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
