- (1.) 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 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. 9. That compensation cannot be uniform and can best be illustrated by considering cases where possession is being directed to be delivered and cases where only monies are directed to be returned. In cases where possession is being directed to be delivered the compensation for harassment will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply returned then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/plot. He is being deprived of that flat/plot. He has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of that flat/plot. Therefore the compensation in such cases would necessarily have to be higher. Further if the construction is not of good quality or not complete, the compensation would be the cost of putting it in good shape or completing it along with some compensation for harassment. Similarly, if at the time of giving possession a higher price or other amounts are collected unjustifiably and without there being any provision for the same the direction would be to refund it with a reasonable rate of interest. If possession is refused or not given because the consumer has refused to pay the amount, then on the finding that the demand was unjustified the consumer can be compensated for harassment and a direction to deliver possession can be given. If a party who has paid the amount is told by the authority that they are not in a position to ascertain whether he has paid the amount and that party is made to run from pillar to post in order to show that he has paid the amount, there would be deficiency of service for which compensation for harassment must be awarded depending on the extent of harassment. Similarly, if after delivery of possession, the sale deeds or title deeds are not executed without any justifiable reasons, the compensation would depend on the amount of harassment suffered. We clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer. 22. In Civil Appeal No. 7224 of 2002 the respondent had applied for a house in a scheme floated in 1992. He had paid the entire cost. He had been allotted a flat and issued a reservation letter. Yet no possession was given. Thereafter, in 1996 the respondent was informed that for unavoidable reasons the house has been allotted to somebody else and if he desires, he can obtain an alternate flat at a much higher price. This, therefore, is also a case where there is absolutely no justifiable reason why the party has not been delivered possession of the flat which had been allotted to him nor has any offer been made to return his money with interest. Instead the body has asked the party to apply for an alternate flat at a higher rate. In our view, on these facts the award of interest at the rate of 18% is justified. It is not just interest on the amount invested but is also compensation for the harassment and agony caused to the allottee. We have given these two instances only by way of illustrations. 23. As stated above, the interest, in both these cases will be payable from the date the monies were paid till they are retained or deposited in Court/ tribunal. We, however, clarify that merely because we are maintaining awards of interest, it must not be taken to mean that in future the Commission/forum must not work out compensation under various heads and that they can continue to grant interest only by way of damages/compensation. " 4. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel, however, contended that interest should be reckoned from the "date" of deposit to the "date" of offer of possession and not actual taking of possession. He, therefore, contended that when the body offers to the allottee for taking of possession and if the allottee does not take possession without assigning any reasons nor reply to the offer of possession, no interest from the date of offer would be accrued on the amount deposited by the allottee. There is some substance in this contention. Now the consumers are aware that interest are being awarded for belated delivery of possession/non-delivery of possession and unscrupulous consumer may, on one pretext or the other, deliberately avoid taking of possession with a design to earn more interest. In the present case, possession was offered on 26-2-1996. The allottee did not take the possession nor amount, then on the finding that the demand was unjustified the consumer can be compensated for harassment and a direction to deliver possession can be given. If a party who has paid the amount is told by the authority that they are not in a position to ascertain whether he has paid the amount and that party is made to run from pillar to post in order to show that he has paid the amount, there would be deficiency of service for which compensation for harassment must be awarded depending on the extent of harassment. Similarly, if after delivery of possession, the sale deeds or title deeds are not executed without any justifiable reasons, the compensation would depend on the amount of harassment suffered. We clarify that the above are mere examples. They are not exhaustive. The above shows that compensation cannot be the same in all cases irrespective of the type of loss or injury suffered by the consumer. 22. In Civil Appeal No. 7224 of 2002 the respondent had applied for a house in a scheme floated in 1992. He had paid the entire cost. He had been allotted a flat and issued a reservation letter. Yet no possession was given. Thereafter, in 1996 the respondent was informed that for unavoidable reasons the house has been allotted to somebody else and if he desires, he can obtain an alternate flat at a much higher price. This, therefore, is also a case where there is absolutely no justifiable reason why the party has not been delivered possession of the flat which had been allotted to him nor has any offer been made to return his money with interest. Instead the body has asked the party to apply for an alternate flat at a higher rate. In our view, on these facts the award of interest at the rate of 18% is justified. It is not just interest on the amount invested but is also compensation for the harassment and agony caused to the allottee. We have given these two instances only by way of illustrations. 23. As stated above, the interest, in both these cases will be payable from the date the monies were paid till they are retained or deposited in Court/ tribunal. We, however, clarify that merely because we are maintaining awards of interest, it must not be taken to mean that in future the Commission/ forum must not work out compensation under various heads and that they can continue to grant interest only by way of damages/compensation. ";