Darshan Singh vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE only relief sought by way of compensation in the application filed in C.A. No. 147/98 is for a refund at Rs. 10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% from 15.7.1996 till the date of realization of the amount. This claim is based on the facts as detailed in the application.

BRIEFLY stated, in pursuance of an advertisement of Janta Flats in Pitampura launched by the respondent, the applicant applied for and was allotted Flat No. 24B, Block HB, Pitampura, Delhi - 34 on higher purchase basis. The applicant paid Rs. 5,000/- towards initial registration amount. In addition a sum of Rs. 31,426/- was paid by way of various instal-ments from 28.2.1993 to 15.7.1996 totalling to Rs. 36,426/-. The payment so made was reportedly in excess of Rs. 27,000/- payable with interest for belated payments of various instalments by the applicant. For non-refund of the excess amount paid and for non-waiver of penalty as requested, the applicant approached the Commission with a complaint against the Delhi Develop-ment Authority for having indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act). For loss or damages suffered on account of such unfair trade practices adopted by the respondent, the compensation has been sought under Section 12B of the Act. Notice to the compensation application was sent to the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). In its reply, it refuted all the allegations levelled against it. It is contended that the total cost of the flat was at Rs. 19,000/- which was payable in 15 years on monthly instalments of Rs. 137.85 each. The first instalment was payable on 10.10.1980 after which the other instalments were to be paid every month. In case of non-payment or delayed payment of the instalment, the allottee was to be charged penalty at a specific rate, which increased for default of each month. The applicant instead of making payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme paid the amount intermittently for which he was given credit while adjusting the total amount payable. After adjusting the amount as paid, the net amount of penalty payable on behalf of the applicant worked out to Rs. 37,873/-. In addition, the applicant was required to pay ground rent and supervision charges along with the interest thereon. Despite recovery notice sent to the applicant, no payment was made. In absence of any receipt filed in regard to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as stated to have been paid no credit could be given to the applicant. In the circumstances, charges of unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent could not be established much less the prayer for compensation to be awarded.

On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application ? (2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices ? (3) Relief, if any.

BOTH the parties relied upon their affidavits and counter-affidavit along with the documents. The Advocates appearing on both sides were also heard. Supporting documents filed on both sides reveal that vide letter dated 21.8.1980,the applicant was intimated the allotment of Flat No. 24B, the total cost of which was given at Rs. 19,600/-. The amount already paid by applicant was stated to be Rs. 5,600/-. As the payments made were disputed by the respondent, the respondent was asked to verify the payments as recorded in the register maintained. The following information was furnished : Details of Challan/not submitted/deposited Rs. 5,000/- deposited on 26.11.1992 (Rs. 5,202/- as entered in D&C para 2) Rs. 3,308/- -do- -do- -do- 28.2.1983 Rs. 6,000/- at the time of taking possession

EVEN as per above, there is still discrepancy between the payments stated to have been made by the applicant and the one found recorded in register of the respondent Authority. Admittedly, the applicant has not made payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme. The payments have been made from the year 1980 to 1996 and that too in lump-sum. As per scheme, in case of belated payments for the first month penalty at the rate of Rs. 2 or 1% would be payable, which would increase to Rs. 10 or 4% for the successive defaults. We however find that the basis for the penalty payable at Rs. 43,450/- for belated payment has not been made available before us. On the other hand, there is a dispute in regard to payment of Rs. 10,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- is stated to be deposited in cash and Rs. 5,000/- after procuring challan from the respondent. This is as per the demand notice issued under Section 68 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. In absence of any clear picture regarding the payment having made and basis of amount as determined as a penalty it is difficult to determine whether the net amount is payable or refundable to the applicant. What is clear is that applicant has paid more than what was due from it. Since the only remedy sought by way of compensation is the adjustment of Rs. 10,000/- paid and calculation of penalty, if any, payable after adjustment, the respondent is directed to verify the amount from its records and after calculating the penalty payable, if any, as per terms and conditions of the brochure determine the net amount payable or refundable to the applicant through its Advocate. The basis of calculation may be furnished to the applicant who after verification is directed to pay the amount as undertaken to do so in the Court. In case of refund, if any, on account of excess payment, the applicant be allowed interest @ 12% from the date of refund found payable till date of order. The respondent is directed to comply with the directions and furnish affidavit of compliance within six weeks of the receipt of the order. There is no order as to the cost on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. C.A. disposed of.