HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VIJAY AGGARWAL

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 correlate 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/peitions 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.