judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the Commission). The issue before the Commissioner which was considered in the Revision Petition of the appellant was as follows.

“When the possession of the plot originally allotted in a particular sector could not be given to the allottee for any reason for no fault of his and HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority) is required to allot an alternative plot in lieu thereof in any other sector, what price HUDA is to charge for the alternative plot allotted in the different sector.”

3.The Commission was considering various cases and the case of HUDA v. R.P. Chawla (Revision Petition Nos.17-18 of 1997) was taken as an illustrative case. Ultimately, the Commission came to hold as follows:

“The issue before us is the allotment of alternative plot. It is also to be seen that if for no fault of the allottee, he is deprived of his plot allotted to him and in lieu of that he is allotted some other plot in the same or any other sector he cannot be asked to pay the price over and above of original plot which he will have to pay. In this case allottee would be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. The interest amount shall however be payable from the date of respective deposits of the amounts.”

4.Rate of interest fixed by the Commission is under challenge.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in several cases this Court has held that a fixed rate of interest of 18% is high.

6.There is no appearance on behalf of respondents in spite of service of notice.

7.In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh [2004(5) SCC 65] it was inter alia observed as follows:

“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 18% per annum. As seen above, what is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined on basis of loss of rent which could have been earned if possession was given and the premises let out or if the consumer has had to stay in rented premises then on basis of rent actually paid by him. Along with recompensing the loss the Commission/Forum may also compensate for harassment/injury, both mental and physical. Similarly, compensation can be given if after allotment is made there has been cancellation of scheme without any justifiable cause.

xxx xxx xxx

10.As has been set out hereinabove, the National Forum has been awarding interest at a flat rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the facts of each case. This, in our view, is unsustainable. Award of compensation must be under different separate heads and must vary from case to case depending on the facts of each case.

xxx xxx xxx

12.The National Forum in the lead judgment has considered the authorities of this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Dhanesh Chand Goel and the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Rajnish Chander Sharda. From these decisions, the National Forum has concluded that award of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on amount deposited by the allottee where there is a delay in handing over possession is reasonable and could be awarded on equitable grounds. In our view, this conclusion of the National Forum is not correct. In Dhanesh Chand Goel case the