HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJE RAM

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 601

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, AFTAB ALAM

Case summary

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJE RAM.pdf

Judgment text

[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: Allotment ofplots to re-al/otees by Development Authority - 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 ofpossession, 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 - Development Authority entitled to restitution and recover back 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 i (5) SCC 65; HUDA v. Darsh Kumar 2005 (9) SCC 449 and Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank 2007 (6) sec 711, relied on. Case Law Reference: 2005 (9) sec 449 relied on para 6 2004 (5) sec ss relied on para 7 2001 (6) sec 111 . relied on para 7 ~· 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 Delhi ·in Revision Petition No. 2173 of 1999. WITH ·G. A. No. 2382/2003 and C. A. No. 3413/2003. Satinder S. Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand and Kamaldeep Gulati for the Appellant. C-' Jaspreet Gogia for the Respondent. " The following Order of the Court was delivered : ORDER ' ;. .. These appeals by special leave challenge three identical orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 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 the plot. On 15. 1. 1993, the appellant notified the revision of t price. from Rs. 224. 90 to Rs. 301. 70 per sq. yard and gave an 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 ofallotment to the name 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 several grounds. The appellant also offered possession of the 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 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 reallotted the plot to the respondent by re-allotment letter 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 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 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 delivery of possession, by order dated 10. 5. 1999. t -- Forum in 1997, within a short period from the dates of re- -- 1 allotment in their favour. They had not paid the full price when they approached the District Forum. In the circumstances, having regard to the principles laid down by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh - 2004 (5) -- t A SCC 65; . Darsh Kumar (supra) and Bangalore Development Authority v.

Syndicate Bank - 2007 (6) SCC 711, we are of the view that the award of interest was neither warranted nor justified. 8. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the 8 impugned orders of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission awarding interest. The complaints stand dismissed. 9. The appellant states that· it had paid interest in C pursuance of the State Commission's orders as there was no order of stay, to the respondents in two of the app~als (Rs. 23308/-was paid to respondent in CA No. 2381/2003 on 14. 10. 1999 and Rs. 70572/-was paid to the respondent in CA 3413/2003 on 13,7. 1999). If so, the appellant is entitled to o restitution and it can recover back the amounts paid to the respective respondent. I· RP. Appeals allowed. -·