In the Matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Diwan Singh Complaint no. Civil Appeal no. 3409 of 2003 // (2010) 14 SCC 770 decided on 23.10.2008 before Supreme Court of India
Fact of the Case.
Plot No. 2163P in Sector 13, Bhiwani was allotted by the Appellant in the year 1990
on the request of the original allottee, it was re-allotted to the respondent by the appellant on 21.4.1998
In the year 1999, respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, alleging that in spite of payment of the full price, the appellant had failed to deliver possession, on account of non-completion of development
He therefore sought three reliefs.
First, a direction to the appellant to pay interest at 24% per annum on the amounts deposited, till the date of delivery of possession (after removing the road laid over a part of the plot).
Second was for a direction to the appellant not to charge any extension fee after 1994 or any interest on the extension fee.
Third was for payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ for harassment and suffering
The appellant resisted the claim on several grounds and also alleged that it had offered possession in 1994 and again in May 1998
The District Forum by its order dated 10.8.1999 accepted the contention of the respondent that there was no effective offer of delivery of possession in May 1998 and awarded interest at 18% per annum on the amounts deposited, with effect from the date commencing on the expiry of two years from the date of deposit, till date of fresh offer of possession with a further direction to the appellant not to charge interest on the extension fee. The prayer for compensation for suffering/mental agony was rejected.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 21.9.1999 by a nonspeaking order on the ground that there was no merit in the appeal.
The appellant challenged the order of the State Commission in a Revision filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The National Commission by a non-speaking order dated 27.8.2002 disposed of the Revision Petition in terms of its decision in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar (Revision petition No. 1197 of 1998) wherein it has upheld the award of interest even at 18% per annum.
Order of the Supreme court
One significant aspect to be noticed is that respondent is not the allottee who was allotted the plot in 1990, but a re-allottee who was re-allotted the plot in April 1998. When he was offered possession of the plot in May 1998, he found that a part of it was used for road purposes of road. Thereafter, the appellant even offered an alternative plot. The respondent however rushed to the District Forum in 1999, hardly within a year of re-allotment.
A re-allottee in 1998 cannot obviously be awarded interest from 1992 on the amounts paid by the original allottee in 1990 on the ground that the original allottee was not offered delivery in 1990.
x
