Back
S.N.VARIAVA, H.K.SEMA
Ghaziabad Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Balbir Singh – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment discusses awarding interest for belated delivery/non-delivery of possession and the date from which interest should be reckoned when there is no reply from the allottee (!) (!) . - It clarifies that if the allottee does not reply to the offer of possession and does not take possession, interest should be reckoned from the date of deposit to the date of the offer of possession (26.2.1996) rather than from the date of possession, and may be adjusted if reasons are provided and acceptable (!) . - It states that normally, for delivery of possession though belated, interest should not exceed 12% per annum, but there can be exceptions where delay is culpable and there is harassment/injury, with reasons required for any higher award (!) . - It references Balbir Singh’s case to allow refusal of interest for periods stay prevented delivery, depending on inquiry findings about stay impact on construction/delivery (!) . - It notes that the appellant had already deposited/paid 18% interest and that they are precluded from demanding a refund of that amount, with respect to the specific appeal (!) . - It clarifies that awards of 18% interest can also function as compensation for harassment or injury, with examples, and that compensation heads can vary; awards of interest should not be uniform across cases (!) (!) (!) . - The appeal is disposed of with recognition that interest already paid at 18% will not be demanded back by the authority (!) (!) .
Order
Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) awarding interest @ 18% per annum. In view of the order that we propose to pass, necessary facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are obviated. In fact, the appellant has deposited/paid the entire amount of 18% interest and in that view of the matter the appeal is virtually rendered infructuous in view of the order rendered by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 :
24. “We clarify that in all cases where interest has already been paid @ 18% irrespective of the above order, the authority will not be entitled to call upon the party to refund the amount which has already been paid.”
3. This Court after threadbare consideration of the submissions in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) in paragraphs 8, 9, 22 and 23, by way of illustrations, as to under what circumstances interest @ 18% would be justifiable.
8. “However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all matters at a uniform rate of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
