ALOK HARURAY vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD.

THIS order shall dispose of Compensation Application filed by Shri Alok Haruray (hereinafter referred to as applicant) under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against M/s. Technology Parks Ltd., Regd. Office-78, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (hereinafter referred to as respondent).

THE applicant has alleged in his compensation application that the respondent floated advertisement in "THE Hindustan Times" dated 22.12.1993 announcing three rooms apartments for Rs. 1,90,000/- in Vaishali. Allured by the aforesaid advertisement, the applicant applied for a three-bed room flat proposed to be constructed at Plot No. 23 and deposited booking amount of Rs. 15,000/-. THE respondent issued receipt Nos. 2888 and 2889 for the same, which are on record of the case and allotted a flat No. G-514 at 5th Floor of the proposed building. After that the applicant paid the requisite amount on the basis of construction linked instalments as demanded by the respondents from time-to-time. THE applicant paid a total amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. During July, 1997, when the applicant visited the site he found that no construction activity was going on there. According to the applicant, the position of the building was : "In one corner of the building, few pillars were raised upto Vth floor level and another part is at basement level. On an average, it appears the overall construction works out to IInd floor level only."

On enquiry from the official of the Company, no concrete answer was given to the aforesaid state of construction. The applicant stopped making payment of further instalments. The applicant received the last telegram asking for payment from the respondent in July, 1997. After that there was no contact/correspondence. When the applicant tried to contact the respondent, he came to know about the closure of the respondent''s last office at F-46, Greater Kailash Enclave-I.

ACCORDING to the applicant, the respondent after taking an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the promise of providing a three-bed room residential flat neither constructed the building nor handed over the possession of the flat allotted and hence it has indulged in unfair trade practices as defined in Section 36A of the MRTP Act. Left with no other alternative, the applicant approached this Commission vide an application under Section 12-B of the Act, claiming therein refund of deposited amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the dates of deposits till the payment is made + Rs. 3,00,000/- compensation on account of mental agony or hand over the flat/building "As is where is basis". Notice under Section 12B of the application was despatched on 7.1.1999 by RPAD returnable on 18.3.1999. On 18.3.1999, it was presumed that the notice has since been received by the respondent. As despite the service of the notice, the respondent has chosen not to appear either in person or through its Advocate, the proceedings were set ex parte against it. The applicant was given the liberty to file his evidence by way of affidavit which, he subsequently filed and the case was listed for final hearing and disposal of the compensation application. However, in the larger interest of justice, the intimation of that final hearing was also sent to the respondent.

SINCE the respondent was also not represented on the date of final hearing, we heard the ex parte arguments advanced by the applicant himself. On analysis of the record of the case, we found that the respondent never put in its appearance or responded to the notice issued by the Commission. In fact, it is a case of non-rebuttal. Taking cognizance of the averments made by the applicant in his compensation application, pleadings, material/receipts on record and ex parte arguments advanced by the applicant, we found that the applicant deposited a total amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the respondent''s promise of three-bed rooms flat at Vaishali. Since the respondent never constructed/handed over the flat to the applicant, we come to the conclusion that the act of the respondent of keeping the applicant''s deposited money for a long time and not delivering the possession of the flat in question constitutes deficiency of service and falls within the provisions of Section 36A of the MRTP Act, 1969. In various cases pertaining to Technology Parks Ltd. for its schemes in U.P. (Noida/Ghaziabad), the Commission has already held that the respondent Company has indulged in unfair trade practices attracting the provisions of Section 36A of the Act. The Commission in its one judgment covering a batch of six cases bearing UTPE Nos. 21 to 26 of 1992 held that the advertisement issued by the respondent has misled simple and unsuspecting purchasers of the plots and has passed a "Cease and Desist" order against the respondent from indulging in the aforesaid unfair trade practices. The Commission in C.A. No. 131/93, C.A. No. 201/93, C.A. No. 244/94, C.A. No. 217/94, C.A. No. 236/94 and C.A. No. 213/94 and many more cases also has held that the respondent Company has indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the Act in terms of misleading the members of public and of alluring them with false advertisement and has awarded compensation to the applicants.

SINCE the facts of this case are also identical and the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid findings of the Commission, we hold that the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practices as alleged by the applicant. It is quite clear that since the applicant has suffered pecuniary losses, he is entitled to relief.

IN view of the foregoing, I direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the applicant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the dates of deposit of all instalments, till the same is refunded to him. In the prayer clause of the application, the applicant has sought compensation towards mental agony to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. We are not agreeable to award such huge compensation particularly when the interest at the rate of 18% is allowed from the dates of deposit. However, we are of the view that he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of case. The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amounts within 6 weeks from the date of this order and file an affidavit of compliance within 2 weeks thereafter, which shall not be later than 8 weeks from the date of this order. A copy of this order shall be sent to both the parties under R.P.A.D. C.A. disposed of.