ARUNA SEHGAL vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD

THIS order shall dispose of Compensation Application filed by Smt. Aruna Sehgal (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., E-46, Greater Kailash Enclave Part-I, New Delhi-110 048 and its Chairman, Shri P.S. Sabharwal and Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively).

DURING 1988, the respondent represented through numerous advertisements that they were developing and promoting India''s first Hi-Tech residential complex ''Park City'' at Greater Noida. The applicant allured by the advertisements booked a plot measuring 299 sq. mtrs. @ Rs. 255.75 per sq. mtr. The applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 5.10.1988 and Rs. 25,588/- on 21.10.1988 towards 40% of the purchase price of the plot. The respondent allotted a Plot bearing No. B-32 in Park City vide its two letters dated 5.12.1988, which are on record of the case. Plot Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on 27.1.1989 as required vide respondent''s letter dated 29.12.1988. As per Clause 2(d) (VI) of the aforesaid agreement, the internal development shall be within 3 years from the date of this agreement. The respondent kept on informing the applicant that the developed plot would be handed over to him in time as per schedule. The respondent vide its letter dated 6.3.1991 asked the applicant to pay the instalments in time failing which the respondent shall forfeit the amount deposited as per Clause 17 of the Plot-Buyer''s Agreement. The applicant in addition to the initial deposited + registration amount deposited an amount of Rs. 45,881.25 through 13 instalments from 20.12.1988 to 30.1.1992. The respondents vide letter dated 16.3.1992 demanded a sum of Rs. 5,980/- towards first instalment of sewerage development, which was deposited by the applicant on 29.5.1992 vide Receipt No. 16304. Thus, the applicant in all deposited Rs. 82,449.25 on the belief of getting fully developed plot B-32 in Park City. The applicant waited for 9 years for the physical possession of the said plot, which was supposed to be handed over to him as per terms of agreement on 27.1.1992. It is now well known that till date respondent has got no approval from the U.P. Govt, or even from the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority despite of the fact that it had represented that it has obtained necessary approval/permission from the concerned authorities.

Left with no other alternative, the applicant sent a legal Notice dated 27.4.1998 to the respondents to repay the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposits. The respondent never responded to it.

THE applicant quoted certain judgments of the Commission delivered in cases against Technology Parks and asserted that in the light of those judgments, the respondents have got no reply or defence to offer. According to the applicant, he has suffered loss and damages at the hands of the same respondent i.e. M/s. Technology Parks in the identical circumstances and hence covered by the principle of provisions under Order 1, Rule 8(6) of the First Schedule of the CPC. Since the acts of the respondent to withhold the money of the applicant without any reason is an act of unfair trade practice, the applicant approached this Commission vide an application under Section 12-B of the Act, claiming therein refund of sum of Rs. 82,449.25 alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the dates of deposits made till the date of refund, compensation for mental torture and costs.

NOTICE under Section 12B of the application was issued returnable on 10.3.1999. On that date, one Advocate, Mr. Ajay Bahl has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of all the respondents and undertook to furnish their correct and current addresses within a week and also undertook to file the reply of the respondents. Since the respondents were not represented on 3.5.1999, the proceedings against them were set ex parte and the applicant was given the liberty to file his evidence by way of affidavits. Applicant filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Amarjit Singh Minocha, General Attorney alongwith supporting documents. Cross-examination of the applicant''s witnesses could not take place since the proceedings against the respondents were already ex parte. We heard the ex parte final arguments advanced by Mr. Kailash Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.

ON analysis of the record of the case, we found that except on the first date of hearing when Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate appeared for the respondents and undertook to furnish their current and correct addresses, the respondents never put in their 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 Mr. Kailash Sharma, Advocate for the applicant, we found that the applicant deposited a total amount of Rs. 82,449.25 on the respondent''s promise of handing over possession of a plot measuring 299 sq. mtrs. within 3 years. Since the respondent never handed over the plot to the applicant even after more than 10 years, 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 plot in question constitutes deficiency of service and falls within the provisions of Section 36A of the MRTP Act, 1969.

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 lias passed a "Cease and Desist" order against the respondent from indulging in the aforesaid unfair trade practices. THE Commission in C.A. No. 131/92, 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 respondents have 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 above, we direct the respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 82,449.25 to the applicant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the dates of deposit of all the instalments, till the same is refunded to him.

IN the prayer clause of the application, the applicant has sought compensation towards mental agony and costs of the case. 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 No. 1 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. C.A. disposed of.