ARUN KUMAR GUPTA vs Meerut Development Authority

IN this compensation application filed under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in short), the applicant has claimed refund of the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

IN response to a scheme floated by the respondent, the applicant applied for allotment of a plot measuring 180 sq. mtrs. in Category ''C'' in the Shatabdi Nagar Residential Scheme. He deposited an amount of Rs. 8,000/- by way of registration money which was duly acknowledged by the respondent vide receipt dated 15.9.1989. IN the draw of lots held on 8.4.1992, the applicant was found successful and he was accordingly allotted a ''C'' Category Plot No. B/103 in Sector 2 measuring 180 sq. mts. at an estimated cost of Rs. 81,000/-. IN the letter dated 14.2.1991, the applicant was required to deposit the reservation amount of Rs. 20,000/- by 1.3.1991 and to pay the balance amount in eight six-monthly instalments, in the respondent''s account in Allahabad Bank, either at Scindia House, New Delhi or at Meerut. It has been stated that the applicant deposited the reservation amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 2.3.1991 vide Cheque No. 890811 drawn on the State Bank of INdia, Wazirpur INdustrial Area Branch, Delhi, which was paid in clearing through Allahabad Bank, Scindia House, New Delhi on 5.3.1991. It is further stated that, as per Clause 2 of the terms and conditions given in the respondent''s letter dated 14.2.1991, possession of the plot was assured to be given in 1992. The applicant''s allegation against the respondent is that no progress was made at the site to provide basic infrastructural facilities for the development of plots and that the respondent failed to deliver possession of the plot in a developed condition within the stipulated period. It has also been alleged that the respondent raised the price of the plot from Rs. 81,000/- to an unreasonable amount of Rs. 1,08,000/-. In these circumstances, the applicant decided to withdraw from the scheme and claimed refund of the amount of Rs. 28,000/- vide letter dated 10.7.1993. The respondent cancelled the allotment of plot and refunded an amount of Rs. 8,000/- but declined to pay the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It has been claimed that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent is an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36-A of the MRTP Act, as a result of which, financial loss has been caused to the applicant. Hence, the present petition has been filed for grant of compensation.

In its reply, the respondent has admitted payment of Rs. 8,000/-. About the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- however, it has been stated in para 6 of the reply that "receipt is not available on record". For delay in the delivery of possession of the plot, the respondent has simply taken the plea that the time indicated for delivering possession of the plot was merely the expected time. But no specific reasons have been assigned for delay in the delivery of possession within the expected time. It has also been contended that, in terms of Clause 16 of the registration letter, no amount is refundable to the applicant.

AFTER the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the respondent has indulged in RTPs/UTPs as alleged by the applicant in the compensation application ? (ii) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage by reasons of alleged RTPs/UTPs ? (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled for any compensation or relief ?

For reasons stated in the Commission''s order dated 2.1.2001, arguments had to be heard ex-parte. The respondent did not come forward to take part in the arguments despite the fact that this was the last and the final opportunity given to the respondent for addressing arguments.

I have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties on record and the oral and written submissions made by the learned Advocate for the applicant. It is admittedly correct that the respondent failed to deliver possession of plots within the stipulated period. It has not been controverted that the respondent failed to develop the site in accordance with the promises made to the allottees. Mere fact that the delivery time promised was the expected time also does not go very far unless the respondent gives cogent reasons for delay which the respondent has failed to give in the instant case. Copies of newspaper reports filed by the applicant lend further credence to the allegations of delay in the delivery of possession, non-development of site and unreasonable escalation in the cost of the plot. While it is not for the Commission to sit in judgment about the reasonability of the price of the plot, the onus is on the respondent to prove that the increase in the price was for valid reasons which the respondent, in the instant case, has failed to do. These deficiencies in service and non-fulfilment of promises made to the allottees tantamount to unfair trade practices as defined in Section 36-A of the MRTP Act. The other contention of the applicant is that, out of a total amount of Rs. 28,000/-, the respondent has refunded the part amount of Rs. 8,000/- only and has refused to pay the balance amount on the plea that the disputed amount of Rs. 20,000/- was neither deposited by the applicant nor was it payable under the terms and conditions of the letter of registration. This plea of the respondent is untenable in view of the overwhelming evidence to prove the contrary. In support of the fact that the applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the respondent, he has produced a copy of the receipt dated 2.3.1991 issued by the Allahabad Bank, Meerut Vikas Pradhikaran acknowledging the receipt of the amount of Rs. 20,000/-. In addition, the applicant has also filed an affidavit stating that he had deposited the reservation amount of Rs. 20,000/- vide Cheque No. 890811 dated 2.3.1991 drawn on the State Bank of India, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi which was paid in clearing from the Allahabad Bank, Scindia House, New Delhi on 5.3.1991. To further substantiate his claim, the applicant has produced a copy of the letter dated 18.3.1998 from the Allahabad Bank, Scindia House, New Delhi stating that, as per records available with the Bank, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been deposited in the Account No. 303182 of Meerut Development Authority on 5.3.1991 through Cheque No. 890811 of the State Bank of India, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi. The applicant has also produced a copy of the certificate given by the State Bank of India stating that banker''s Cheque No. 890811 dated 2.3.1991 favouring the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was issued to the applicant, namely, Shri Arun Kumar Gupta on 2.3.1991. Subsequently, the above cheque was paid in clearing through Allahabad Bank, Scindia House, New Delhi on 5.3.1991. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also shown me the originals of these documents which tally with the photocopies of the documents filed on record. This leaves no doubt as to the fact that the applicant had deposited the reservation amount of Rs. 20,000/- and that this amount was duly credited into the account of the respondent in the Allahabad Bank.

WHILE denying the payment of Rs. 20,000/-, the respondent has also stated that under the terms of the conditions laid down in the letter of registration, no amount is refundable to the applicant. No such terms and conditions have been shown to me to prove this point. This contention is further falsified by the fact that the respondent has already refunded part amount of Rs, 8,000/- to the applicant. This being so, I fail to understand what prevents the respondent from paying the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It is also noticed from record that initially the deposit of Rs. 20,000/- was not denied by the respondent in its reply to the compensation application. In the reply, the respondent has merely stated that "the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- is not available on record". This merely gives rise to the presumption that the respondent''s records are not properly maintained for which the applicant cannot be made to suffer. In view of this, I am inclined to believe that the applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- also with the respondent and the same is lawfully refundable to the applicant in the same manner in which the part amount of Rs. 8,000/- has been refunded.

IN the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in accepting the prayer made in the compensation application. Accordingly, compensation by way of refund of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date, the applicant withdrew from the scheme till the date of refund, is awarded in favour of the applicant. The respondent is directed to ensure compliance of this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order and to file an affidavit of compliance within two weeks thereafter. C.A. disposed of.