HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SOMA DEVI

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 27-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
SOMA DEVI 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Urban Development : 
Land Development Authority-Allotment ofplot-Non-delive~laim 
for refund of amount-Order for refund with interest at the rate of 18% by 
Consumer Courts-Receipt of refund money-On appeal to Supreme Court 
plea of allottee for possession of the plot-Held: Allottee having claimed only 
for refund and having received the same cannot subsequently claim for 
possession-Refund with interest at the rate of 18% justified-Estoppel-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
Respondent was allotted plot by appellant-Authority. Despite 
payment of substantial amount possession was not delivered. Respondent 
filed complaint claiming·refund of amounts paid. District Forum directed 
refund with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. State Commission on appeal 
reduced the interest rate to 12% p.a. National Commission upheld the 
payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on principles laid down in 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh. Appellants refunded 
the amount to the respondent. 
On the respondent showing the correspondence wherein he had 
asked for possession, this Court directed delivery of possession to the 
Respondent. In fact it was only a case of refund and not possession. 
Possession was thus delivered to the Respondent. 
. 
Respondent contended that she was also entitled to delivery of 
possession as the allottee of neighbouring plot had also been given 
possession, and that she would remit the market value for the same. 
Appellant contended that money having been refunded respondent 
was not entitled for possession; and that submission regarding possession 
of neighbouring plot was made for the first time and hence was not 
maintainable. 
H 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
760 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SOMA DEVI [VARIAVA, J.] 761 
HELD: 1. Respondent having claimed a refund and having received 
the amounts can now have no right to possession. The possession obtained 
under orders of this Court was without disclosing proper facts to this 
Court. Respondent cannot be allowed to retain possession. Respondent 
is directed to forthwith return the possession to the Appellants. (763-E) 
2. As refund has been made with interest at the rate of 18%, on 
principles laid down in the case of Balbir Singh, no refund can now be 
claimed by the Appellants. [763-G] 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, [2004) 5 SCC 65, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7596 of2002. 
From tpe Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2001 of the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 2006 of 2001. 
J.P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda and Vineet Dhanda for the Appellant. 
Pardeep Gupta, S.K. Trivedi and K.K. Mohan for the Respondent. • 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. N. V ARIA VA, J. : 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 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 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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
guidelines which the Forum or the Commission has to follow in future cases. 
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/Compla

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