BALDEV RAJ VIG vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD.

THIS order shall dispose of compensation application filed by Shri Baldev Raj Vig, 12, Kautilya Marg (2nd Floor), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110 021 (hereinafter referred to as applicant) under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s. Technology Parks Ltd., through its Managing Director, E-46, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi -110 048 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

THE respondent issued an advertisement in the "Hindustan Times" dated 17.11.1993 offering residential flats measuring 600 sq. ft. at Vaishali Township, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. THE amount required to be deposited at the time of booking was Rs. 25,000/- and the balance amount was to be paid in interest free instalments. The applicant got attracted and booked a flat by depositing Rs. 25,000/- vide Receipt No. 2496 on 18.11.1993. In addition to the booking amount, the applicant deposited Rs. 48,000/- + Rs. 8,000/- vide Receipt Nos. 2593 dated 25.11.1993 and 47775 dated 26.3.1994 respectively as demanded by the respondent. After receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 81,000/-, the respondent executed an agreement with the applicant on 6.6.1994 and allotted Flat No. 925-B on 9th Floor measuring 600 sq. ft.

As per the provisions made in the aforesaid agreement, the respondent undertook to complete the construction and hand over the possession of the flat within a period of 3 years. In case for any reason, the respondent is not able to complete the construction and hand over the possession, he shall return the money deposited by the petitioner with interest.

THEREAFTER, the applicant made payment of instalments Rs. 16,000/-, Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- as demanded by the respondent from time to time within the time limit prescribed by it and the receipts of payment are on record. The respondent kept on making false claims that the construction is going on vide its letters, which are on record. Again vide its telegram dated 29.9.1995, the respondent demanded payment of another instalment of Rs. 8,500/-, which was paid by the applicant vide Receipt No. 13631 dated 4.10.1995. The applicant after depositing an amount of Rs. 1,29,500/- requested the respondent through various letters to intimate the correct status of construction and the date on which the possession shall be handed over to him but there was no response from the respondent. Left with no other alternative, the applicant sent a Legal Notice to the respondent either to hand over the possession of the flat or return of the deposited amount with interest @ 24% p.a. There was no response from the respondent even to the said legal notice. The applicant approached this Commission through an application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 for redressal of his grievances due to illegal and unfair trade practices adopted by the respondent.

NOTICE of the aforesaid compensation application was sent to the respondent returnable on 15.7.1999. Since the respondent did not put in its appearance, the proceedings against it was set ex parte and the applicant was given the liberty to file his evidence by way of affidavit, which was subsequently filed by him reiterating his stand taken in his petition. 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 Shri Baldev Raj Vig himself, we found that the applicant deposited a total amount of Rs. 1,29,500/-on the respondent''s promise of handing over possession of a flat of 600 sq. ft. within 3 years. Since the respondent never handed over the flat 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 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 36 A 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 entited to relief.

IN view of the above, we direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 1,29,500/- 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 indulgence of the respondent in restrictive and unfair trade practices for escalating the cost of construction of the flat to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs, mental agony Rs. 2 lakhs, difference in the market price of the flat and costs of the case.

Since we have already directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., we are not inclined to award such huge compensation. 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. C.A. disposed of.