LexHARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJE RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 601
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
RAJE RAM
(Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 2003)
OCTOBER 23, 2008
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
INTEREST:
A
B
Allotment of plots to re-al/otees by Development Authority C
- Delay in delivery of possession - Re-allottee invoking
provisions of Consum~r Protection Act - Consumer forums
awarding interest to re-allottees - HELD: Claimants are not
the original allottees - In spite of knowing the fact of delay in
delivery of possession, and the time not being essence of the o
contract, they accepted re-allotment - They ~ven did not pay
-1
full price when they approached the District Forum - In the
circumstances, award of interest was neither warranted nor
justified - Orders of District Forum, State Commission and
National Consumer Redressal Commission set aside -
E
Development Authority entitled to restitution and recover back
i
the amount paid - Consumer Protection ;;ict, 1986 - Award
of interest to re-al/ottee of plot - Urban Development.
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh 2004
(5) SCC 65; HUDA v. Darsh Kumar 2005 (9) SCC 449 and
F
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank 2007 (6)
sec 711, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2005 (9) sec 449
2004 (5) sec ss
2001 (6) sec 111
relied on
relied on
. relied on
601
para 6
para 7
para 7
G
H
602·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R
A·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
~·
2381 of2003.
From the final Order and Judgment dated 27.8.2002 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
B
Delhi ·in Revision Petition No. 2173 of 1999.
WITH
· G.A. No. 2382/2003 and C.A. No. 3413/2003.
c
Satinder S. Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand and Kamaldeep
Gulati for the Appellant.
'
Jaspreet Gogia for the Respondent.
C-
"
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D
ORDER
'
These appeals by special leave challenge three identical
;.
..
orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
E
Commission ('National Commission' for short).
CA No. 2381/2003 [HUDA vs. Raje Ram]
2. Plot No. 545, Sector 14, Hissar was allotted to Madanlal
on 12.12.1986. The allottee had deposited 25% of the cost of
F
the plot. On 15.1.1993, the appellant notified the revision of
price.from Rs.224.90 to Rs.301.70 per sq. yard and gave an
t
option to the allottee to either accept the revision or receive
back :the initial deposit with interest at 10% per annum. The •
allottee and. respondent sought transfer of allotment to the name
G
of respondent. The request was accepted and the appellant re-
.
.
·allotted the plot to the respondent vide letter dated 15.3.1994
,/
subje't~t to payment of extension fee. Aggrieved. by .the non-
..
.,
delivery of possession of the allotted" pfot, resp.o.ndent
approached tbe District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum,
Hissar in the year 1997. The appellant contested the claim on
H several grounds. The appellant also offered possession of the
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
"
A CA. No. 3413/2003 fHUDA vs. Sunil Kumar]
4. Plot No. 1051, Sector 14-P, Hissarwas allotted to one
_)
Anjani Kumar-on 21.3.1986. By letter dated 5.8.1989, the
appellant offered to refund the deposit if he did not want to wait
B till the development was completed. In 1993, the appellant
notified the revision of price which was not paid. The original
allottee sought transfer of allotment to the name of respondent
and the appellant permitted the transfer on 9. 7 .1996 and re-
allotted the plot to the respondent by re-allotment letter
c no.14662 dated 21.8.1996 subject to payment of extension fee.
Alleging non-delivery of possession of the allotted plot,
respondent filed .Complaint no.451 /1997 before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hissar, seeking interest
on the amounts deposited, from the date of payment, among
D
other reliefs. The appellant contested the claim. The District
Forum by order dated 15.4.1998 directed the appellant to pay
interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the respondent on the
amounts deposited from the expiry of two years from the date
of deposit till the date of offer of possession. The appellant
challenged the award of interest by filing an appeal before the
E State Commission. The appellant also offered possession of
the plot on 25.11.1998. The State Commission reduced the
interest from 18% per annum to 15% per annum from the date
of re-allotment till deliExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.