DEEPAK SAWHNEY vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD.

MR. Deepak Sawhney, complainant, booked plot No. 110 in Block A in the residential portion of Park City Complex near Surajpur (UP) which was to be developed by Technology Parks Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the opposite party.,The booking was done @ Rs. 330/- per sq. yard. According to the payment plan 40% was to be deposited as earnest money with the application and the balance paid in 36 equal instalments. The plots were to be developed and handed over to the agreement purchasers within 3 years ending 16.1.1992. The complainant deposited Rs. 39,468/- as earnest money and entered into an agreement dated 16.1.1989 with the opposite party. Various instalments were paid from time to time and the total payment made up to the date of filing the complaint was Rs. 91,494/- out of the total cost of Rs. 98,670/- leaving a balance of merely Rs. 7,174/-. The opposite party, however, failed to take any steps to develop the land. Various dates were fixed for completion of the project and false representations made to the complainant that the work was going ahead and all hurdles in the way had been cleared. The complainant wrote several letters including letters dated 17.5.1991, 22.7.1991, 15.4.1993 and being left with no alternative filed the present complaint in March, 1997, claiming refund of the amount paid by him together with interest thereon and compensation as per details in para 11 of the complaint.

THE opposite party appeared and filed a detailed written'' statement to which a rejoinder was filed by the complainant. The complainant also filed his detailed affidavit by way of evidence together with relevant documents. No affidavit by way of evidence has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. The opposite party failed to appear after filing the written statement. We have heard Mr. N.N. Anand, Advocate for the complainant and have gone through the record.

Mr. Anand has brought our attention to earlier decisions rendered by this Commission which completely cover this case. These are : Subhash Khetarpal v. Technology Park, C-281/ 94 and Smt. Neelam Khetarpal v. Technology Park Ltd., C-282 /94 both decided by order of this Commission dated 12.9.1996 and Smt. Madhu Kaila v. Technology Parks Ltd., C-97/94 decided on 15.10.1996. The pleas raised in the said earlier decisions were similar to the one raised by the opposite party in the present complaint. After perusal of the aforesaid decisions along with the record of the present case, we find that the present case is completely covered by our earlier decisions. We, accordingly, allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 91,494/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till payment besides Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of default, it will be open to the complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission u/Sec. 27. A copy of the order passed in the aforesaid decisions shall also be enclosed with copy of the order passed in this case. Complaint allowed with costs.