Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Subhash Gupta

Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Subhash Gupta

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jul 28, 2004

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/661516

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/661516
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: S.N. Variava and; Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 28, 2004
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6548 of 2002
Subject: Consumer

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer - Grant of interest @ 18% per annum by National Commission - Validity - Allotment of plot of 90 sq. mtr. Under Karpuripuram scheme to respondent - Payment of all dues - However non grant of possession - On compliant, District Forum directing delivery of possession and award of interest @ 18% per annum - App...

Key legal issue: Consumer

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ghaziabad Development Authority

Advocate Reena Singh,; T. Mahipal and; Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay

Respondent

Subhash Gupta

Advocate Party-in-person

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra
Reported In: AIR2004SC4133; 2004(3)BLJR1761; III(2004)CPJ8(SC); JT2004(6)SC99; 2004(6)SCALE311; (2005)9SCC433; (2004)3UPLBEC2189

Court's Analysis

Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 502 of 2000

Excerpt

consumer - grant of interest @ 18% per annum by national commission - validity - allotment of plot of 90 sq. mtr. under karpuripuram scheme to respondent - payment of all dues - however non grant of possession - on compliant, district forum directing delivery of possession and award of interest @ 18% per annum - appeal by appellants to state forum - however pending appeals, appellants depositing not only amounts awarded but also amounts paid by respondent to them - state forum confirming award of district forum - appellants for first time taking plea of cancellation of karpuripuram scheme before national commission - national commission increasing rate of interest to 18% per annum - appeal to supreme court - order of national commission granting interest @ 18% held unsustainable in view of decision in case of ghaziabad development authority vs balbir singh wherein practice of grant of interest @ 18% deprecated - as where scheme is cancelled interest is to be paid @ 18%, respondent held entitled to get back his money with interest @ 18% - since appellants contrary to order of district forum, chose not to give possession and returned amounts paid by depositing them in district forum, and did not even point out in pending appeal before state forum that scheme was cancelled, held that no benefit could be granted to appellant - .....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 singh : air 2004 sc2141 , 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 of 90 sq. mtr. under karpuripuram scheme in the year 1991. the respondent paid all dues. yet possession was not offered. the respondent thus filed a complaint.4. the district forum has directed delivery of possession and awarded interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1st july, 1994 till date possession is given. the district forum has also.....

Full 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 v. Balbir Singh : AIR 2004 SC2141 , 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 of 90 Sq. Mtr. under Karpuripuram Scheme in the year 1991. The Respondent paid all dues. Yet possession was not offered. The Respondent thus filed a complaint.

4. The District Forum has directed delivery of possession and awarded interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1st July, 1994 till date possession is given. The District Forum has also directed payment of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

5. The Appellants appealed to the State Forum. We are informed that pending Appeal the Appellants deposited not just the amounts awarded but also the amounts paid by the Respondent to them.

6. The State Forum confirmed the Award in the Appeal filed by the Appellants.

7. The Respondent did not go in Revision before the National Commission. The Appellants filed a Revision before the National Commission. For the first time they now claimed that the Karpuripuram Scheme was cancelled. The National Commission has not dealt with the aspect of cancellation of Scheme but has maintained the rate of interest to 18% p.a.

8. 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. As stated in that Order in cases where the Scheme is cancelled interest must be paid at the rate of 18%. The Respondent is thus entitled to get back his money with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. In this case the Appellants have deposited the amount in the District Forum on 13th February, 1994. The Respondent has not withdrawn the amount as, according to him, the Order of the District Forum was to give possession and pay interest, He correctly submits that the Appellants could not have, contrary to the Order of the District Forum, chosen to not give possession and seek to return amounts paid by depositing the same in the District Forum. We find that the Appellants, on their own, deposited all amounts, without any Order of any Forum. They did not even point out, in the pending Appeal before the State Forum, that the Scheme was cancelled. The State Forum in its Order also directs delivery of possession. Thus by deposit, contrary to Orders of the District and State Forums, the Appellants cannot get any benefit. We have by our earlier Order permitted cancellation of Scheme on payment of interest at 18%. The Respondent must thus get interest till he receives his monies. We therefore permit Respondent, to withdraw the monies deposited. He must do so within one week from date of this Order. If the District Forum has invested the amounts then Respondent will be entitled to the accrued interest also. If the amounts are lying uninvested, then Appellants will pay to the Respondent Interest at the rate of 12% from 13th February, 1999 till date the monies are withdrawn by the Respondent.

9. We clarify that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter having been passed on account of the 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. If amounts deposited with the District/State Forum are lying uninvested, they must automatically invest these amounts in nationalized banks and keep them invested till they have to be returned / paid out.

11. This Appeal is disposed off in above terms. The Appellants will pay to the Respondent costs of this Appeal fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2004 Same Parties Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Subhash Gupta Same Subject Consumer Same Judge S.N. Variava and; Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

Consumer