R.C. Lahoti, J. - (1.) Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 18897/99.
(2.) In this batch of appeals, Ghaziabad Development Authority constituted under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is the appellant. The Authority has from time to time promoted and advertised several schemes for allotment of developed plots for construction of apartments and/or flats for occupation by the allottees. Several persons who had subscribed to the schemes approached different forums complaining of failure or unreasonable delay in accomplishing the schemes. Some have filed complaints before the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practicess Commission and some have raised disputes before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. In two cases civil writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed before the High Court seeking refund of the amount paid or deposited by the petitioner with the Authority. In all the cases under appeal the Court or Commission or Forum concerned has found the appellant-Authority guilty of having unreasonably delayed the accomplishment of the announced scheme or guilty of failure to perform the promise held out to the claimants and therefore directed the amount paid or deposited by the respective claimants to be returned along with itnerest. In the cases filed before the High Court of Allahabad there was a term in the brochure issued by the Authority that in the event of the applicant withdrawing its offer or surrendering the same no interest whatsoever would be payable to the claimants. The High Court has held such term of the brochure to be unconscionable and arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court has directed the amount due and payable to be refunded with interest calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit to the date of refund. In all the other appeals before us the impugned order passed by the Commission or the Forum directs payment of the amount due and payable to the respective claimants with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. In Civil Apepal No. 8316 of 1995, G.D.A. v. Brijesh Mehta, the MRTP Commission has held the claimants entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- payable as compensation for 'mental agony' suffered by the claimants for failure of the Authority to make available the plot as promised by it.
(3.) As all these appeals raise the following common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The questions arising for decision are:- (i) Whether compensation can be awarded for mental agony suffered by the claimants (ii) Whether in the absence of any contract or promise held out by the Ghaziabad Development Authority any amount by way of interest can be directed to be paid on the amount found due and payable by the Authority to the claimants (iii) If so, the rate at which the interest can be ordered to be paid ;