Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the Haryana Urban Development Authority and a complainant regarding the allotment of a plot in Gurgaon. The complainant was allotted plot No. 603 in Sector 38 on 15th December 1999 and paid the required dues; however, possession was not delivered. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the Authority to pay interest at 18% per annum after two years from the deposit date and awarded Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 for costs. The Authority challenged the order, and the National Commission set aside the mental agony compensation but upheld the rest. The Supreme Court noted that interest at a uniform rate of 18% was inappropriate without considering the specifics of each case and emphasized that compensation must be based on actual loss or injury. The Court directed the Authority to deliver possession within one year and allowed the complainant to seek escalation in construction costs thereafter. The Court clarified that this order should not serve as a precedent for future cases, reiterating the need for adherence to principles established in prior judgments. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Interest Rates - Uniform Interest Rate - Supreme Court deprecated the practice of granting uniform interest rates irrespective of case facts - Consumer Forums must determine deficiency in service and misfeasance in public office before awarding interest - Held that interest cannot be uniformly set at 18% without factual basis (Paras 1-1). B) Consumer Protection - Compensation for Mental Agony - Court upheld the Consumer Commission's directive for compensation for mental agony but set aside the specific amount awarded - Compensation must correlate with proven loss or injury - Held that the Commission must assess the actual loss before awarding damages (Paras 1-1). C) Consumer Protection - Delivery of Possession - Court directed the Appellants to deliver possession of the plot within one year, failing which the Respondent could approach the Court - The Respondent entitled to escalate construction costs post-possession - Held that the Appellants must execute the sale deed and permit construction without additional charges (Paras 1-1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order for interest and compensation was justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Consumer Commission's order for interest and compensation but set aside the specific amount for mental agony. The Court directed the Haryana Urban Development Authority to deliver possession of the plot within one year and allowed the complainant to seek escalation in construction costs thereafter.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- interest rates
- mental agony compensation
- deficiency in service
- misfeasance in public office
