HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &ORS vs A.K. RAMPAL

The Supreme Court held that interest at the rate of 18% per annum cannot be uniformly granted in all cases, emphasizing that compensation for mental agony must correlate with actual loss or injury as established in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65. The Court found that the Haryana Urban Development Authority's forfeiture of the deposit was unjustified due to the encumbrance on the plot and directed a refund with interest at 15% per annum. The National Commission's order increasing the interest rate to 18% was set aside, reaffirming the need for a case-specific approach to damages.