JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, 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 vs. Balbir Singh reported in 2004 CCC 27 (NS) : (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 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 guidelines which the Forum or the Commission has to follow in future cases.

2. This Court is now taking up the cases before it for disposal as per principles set out in the earlier judgment. On taking the cases we find that the copies of the Claim/ Petitions made by the Respondent / Complainant and the evidence, if any, led before the District Forum are not in the paper book. This Court has before it the Order of the District Forum. The facts are thus taken from that Order.

3. In this case, the Respondent was allotted a plot bearing No. 408/MGA Sector, Hisar on 23rd March, 1992. Delivery was to be given within 90 days. The Respondent paid substantial amounts but the possession was not delivered. Thus the Respondent filed a complaint. On these facts, the District Forum awarded interest @ 15% p.a. on the amounts deposited. The interest was directed to be payable after two years from the date of each deposit.

4. The State Forum dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order of the District Forum. The Appellants went in Revision before the National Commission. The National Commission dismissed the Revision filed by the Appellants relying upon its own decision in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar 1986-2002 Consumer 5722 (NS) : 2001 CCC 455 (NS) and observing that interest @ 18% p.a. has been allowed by them under similar circumstances. As has been stated in so many matters, the Order of the National Commission cannot be sustained. It cannot dispose of the matters by confirming award of interest in all matters irrespective of the facts of that case. It must, on facts of a case, award compensation /damage under appropriate heads if it comes to the conclusion that such award is justified / necessary. Accordingly the Order of the National Commission is set aside.

5. We are informed that the Appellants have offered possession on 22nd April, 1997. Counsel had no instructions whether Respondent had taken possession or not. Undoubtedly the Respondent will be entitled to take possession, if he has not already taken possession. Appellants will deliver possession without demanding any further or other amounts.

6. We are informed that the Respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 2,37,000/-. We however find from the copy of the allotment letter, filed in this Court along with the affidavit of the Estate Officer dated 29th July 2004 that only a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- was payable. As per the affidavit interest payable to the Respondent, as per the Orders mentioned hereinabove, as supposed to have been adjusted against alleged outstanding dues and only a sum of Rs. 26,392/- has been paid to the Respondent on 23rd July, 2004.

7. Counsel had no instructions and could not explain what were the amounts due from the Respondent. As stated above