HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. S P GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(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 (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 corelate 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. 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.