H.U.D.A versus PREM KUMAR AGARWAL & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 17-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 807 
t 
H.U.D.A. 
A 
V. 
PREM KUMAR AGARWAL & ANR. 
(C.A. No. 469 of 2008) 
JANUARY 17, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
~ 
+ 
Interest - Rate of - Allowed by National Consumer 
Commission at the rate of 18% per annum - Propriety of -
Held: Rate of interest has to be based on current rate - Hence c 
rate of interest directed to be at the rate of 12%. 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 
allowed interest @ 18% per annum on the appellant-
Authority holding that the Authority could. not charge price 
for alternative plot allotted to the respondent, over and D 
'-c~ 
above the price of original plot. In the present appeal, the 
authority has challenged the award of interest as being 
on the high side. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: Rate of interest on compensation has to be 
based on current rate. Considering the fact that this court 
by the interim order had directed stay of the amount 
payable beyond 12%, the respondent would· be entitled 
to interest at the rate of 12% instead of 18% as fixed by F 
the Commission. [Para 8) [811-H; 812-A] 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh 
2004(5) sec 65 - relied on. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 469 G 
__,. 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2003 of 
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2892 of 2003. 
807 
H 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
D.P. Singh, Sanjay Jain, Rajat Vohra and Priyanka Singh 
for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
y 
Delhi (in short the 'Commission'). The issue before the 
Commissioner which was considered in the Revision Petition 
;, 
c 
of the appellant was as follows. 
"When the possession of the plot originally allotted in 
a particular sector could not be given to the allottee for any 
reason for no fault of his and HUDA (Haryana Urban 
Development Authority) is required to allot an alternative 
D 
plot in lieu thereof in any other sector, what price HUDA is 
to charge for the alternative plot allotted in the different 
sector." 
,_, 
3. The Commission was considering various cases and 
the case of HUDA v. R.P Chawla (Revision Petition Nos.17-18 
E of 1997) was taken as an illustrative case. Ultimately, the 
Commission came to hold as follows: 
"The issue before us is the allotment of alternative plot. It 
is also to be seen that if for no fault of the allottee, he is 
F 
deprived. of his plot allotted to him and in lieu of that he is 
allotted some other plot in the same or any other sector he 
f... 
cannot be asked to pay the price over and above of original 
plot which he will have to pay. In this case allottee would 
be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. The interest 
amount shall however be payable from the date of 
G 
respective deposits of the amounts." 
4. Rate of interest fixed by the Commission is under 
+ 
challenge. 
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in 
H several cases this Court has held that a fixed rate of interest of 
·-t 
H.U.D.A. v. PREM KUMAR AGARWAL & ANR. 
809 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
18% is high. 
6. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents in 
spite of service of notice. 
7. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh 
A 
[2004(5) SCC 65] it was inter alia observed as follows: 
B 
"8. However, the power and duty to award compensation 
does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case 
compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform 
rate of 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being 
awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss C 
or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a 
finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount 
of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must 
determine that there has been deficiency in service and/ 
or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss D 
or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, 
a few examples would be where an allotment is made, 
price is rl'!ceived/paid but possession is not given within 
the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum 
would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be E 
· determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been 
earned if possession was given and the premises let

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.