HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SAURABH AGGARWAL

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 24-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

HARY ANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
SAURABH AGGARWAL 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Housing: 
Interest-Rate of-Allotment of plot-Delay in handing over possession-
Despite deposit of substantial amounts-District Forum awarded 18% 
interest p.a. on the deposited amount-Correctness of-Held: Interest cannot 
be granted @ 18% p.a. in all cases irrespective of facts-Development 
Authority to pay interest@ 15% p.a. from date of each deposit till date of 
payment-Authority will not charge interest on delayed payment prior to the 
date of offer of possession-If by that date the original allotment price had 
been paid the Authority will not be entitled to and will not charge any 
interest-If anything extra is recovered the Authority will repay that back to 
the allottee with interest thereon at 15% from the date of such wrongful 
·recovery till payment-If the Authority has a claim and feels that it has to 
recover such amounts from the allottee, it is at liberty to approach the 
Supreme Court for clarification/modification of the order and if on that 
application it is permitted it may recover accordingly-But in the absence 
of any such permission it shall not recover anything extra/over and above 
the original allotment price-Further, if TDS amount is deducted the 
Authority will now pay that over to the al/ottee with interest thereon at the 
rate of 15% from the date it was so deposited till payment-This order shall 
not be taken as a precedent in any other matter as ·the order is being passed 
taking into account features of the case. 
The respondent was allotted a plot by the appellant-Authority. The 
respondent had paid substantial amounts but the possession of the plot 
was not delivered. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before 
the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum which awarded interest 
@ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount. The State Consumers Disputes 
Redressal Forum confirmed the order of the District Forum but reduced 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the interest from 18% to 15%. The National Consumers Disputes 
Redressal Commission dismissed the Revision filed by the appellant on 
H 
705 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
the ground that interest @ 18% had been allowed by it under similar 
circumstances. Hence the appeal. 
B 
c 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The order of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal 
Commission cannot be sustained. It cannot dispose of the matters by 
confirming the award of interest in all matters irrespective of the facts 
of a case. It must, on facts of a case, award compensation/damage under 
appropriate heads if it comes to the conclusion that such an award is 
justified/necessary. Accordingly, the order of the National Commission 
is set aside. [708-B-C] 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, 
relied on. 
2.1. The appellant must pay interest@ 15% from the date of each 
D 
deposit till the date of payment. The appellant will not charge interest on 
delayed payment prior to the date of other of possession. Thus, interest 
could only be charged from the date of offer of possession. If by that date 
the original allotment price had been paid the appellant will not be entitled 
to and will not charge any interest. If anything extra is recovered the 
appellant will repay that back to the respondent with interest thereon@ 
E 
15% from the date of such wrongful recovery till payment. If the appellant 
has a claim and feels that it has to recover such amounts from the respondent, 
it is at liberty to approach this Court for clarification/modification of the 
order and if on that application it is permitted to so recover it may. But in 
the absence of any such permission, it shall not recover anything extra/ 
F 
over and above the original allotment price. [709-E-G) 
G 
2.2. Further, if TDS amount is deducted the appellant will now pay 
that over to the respondent with interest thereon at the rate of 15% 
from the date it was so deposited till payment. [709-H; 710-A] 
3. This order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other matter 
as the order is being passed taking into account special features of the 
case. The Forum/Commission will follow the principles laid down by 
this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority's case. (710-B-C] 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, [2004) 5 SCC 65, 
H 
relied on. 
HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY v. S. AGGARWAL [V ARIA VA, J.) 707 
CI

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