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 Respondents / Complainants 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. SSB-3, Old Court Area, Hisar. The Respondents paid substantial amounts but the possession was not delivered. The Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint. On these facts, the District Forum awarded interest @ 15% p.a. on the entire deposited amount from the date of deposit till offer of possession.

4. The State Forum directed allotment of an alternate plot at the rate payable for the old plot. It also directed that interest at 15% per annum will be payable after 2 years of date of deposit. 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 2001 CCC 455 (NS) and observing that interest @ 18% p.a. would be allowable after two years from the date of the respective deposits of amounts by the Respondent. 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. The National Commission must, if it is satisfied on facts of a particular case, award compensation / damages under specific heads. The Order of the National Forum is accordingly set aside.

5. We are informed that the Appellants have offered possession on 7th October 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 had paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,510.50. 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. 1,76,000/- was payable. As per the affidavit interest in a sum of Rs. 1,74,900/- payable to the Respondent, as per the Orders mentioned hereinabove, has been paid to the Respondent on 16th October, 1998.

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