2004 (9) TMI 696 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Granting interest at the rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the facts of each case.
2. Determining compensation for mental agony/harassment in cases of misfeasance in public office.
3. Calculation of interest and payments in a specific case involving the allotment of a plot.

Issue 1: Granting interest at the rate of 18% per annum
The Supreme Court addressed the practice of granting interest at a fixed rate of 18% per annum in all cases, regardless of the specific circumstances. Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that interest rates should be determined based on the facts of each case. The Court highlighted that Consumer Forums could award compensation for mental agony or harassment only when there is evidence of misfeasance in public office, and such compensation should be directly related to the loss or injury suffered by the complainant.

Issue 2: Determining compensation for mental agony/harassment
The Court reiterated that compensation for mental agony or harassment should be awarded by the Forum or the Commission only if there is a finding of deficiency in service or misfeasance in public office resulting in actual loss or injury to the complainant. The judgment provided guidelines for future cases, emphasizing the need for a direct correlation between the compensation awarded and the demonstrated loss or injury suffered by the complainant.

Issue 3: Calculation of interest and payments in a specific case
In the specific case discussed, the Respondent was allotted a plot but did not receive possession despite making substantial payments. The District Forum initially awarded interest at 15% per annum on the deposited amount. However, subsequent forums and commissions differed on the calculation of interest, leading to discrepancies in the payments made by the Respondent. The Supreme Court directed a recalculation of the interest payable, specifying that interest should be charged from the date of each deposit until the date of payment, without charging interest on delayed payments prior to the date of possession offer. The Court also instructed the Appellants to repay any excess amounts collected from the Respondent and clarified the process for recalculation and repayment, including the treatment of TDS deductions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in this case clarified the principles governing the grant of interest, compensation for mental agony, and the calculation of payments in cases of delayed possession of allotted properties. The Court provided specific directions for the recalculations and repayments to ensure fairness and adherence to legal principles in the resolution of the dispute.