D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. vs Neelam Gupta

THIS judgment will dispose of appeals Nos. A-53/92, A-54/92, A-55/92, A-56/92, A-57/92, A-67/92, A-68/92, A-69/92 and A-71/92 which contain common questions of law and fact. The facts in the order are being given from Appeal No. A-53/92.

THE appellant M/s. DLF Universal Limited had advertised a scheme according to which they offered for allotment 101 plots of the sizes varying from 150 to 200 sq. meters at the specified price of Rs. 544/- per sq. meter. It was provided in the scheme that in case the number of applicants for allotment of the plots exceeded the number of plots, the allotment would be done by draw of lots. THE draw of lots would be done within a period of nine months from the closing date of the scheme i.e. 10th November, 1989 and unsuccessful applicants would be returned the registration money,which in each case was Rs. 15,000/- without interest within three months from the date of draw of the lots. The applicant made an application for allotment of a plot and deposited Rs. 15,000/-as registration charges. She was not allotted a plot in the draw. The amount was refunded to her after about 10 months. Thereafter, she filed an application before the District Forum for directing the opposite party to pay interest on the registration amount.

The complaint was contested by the opposite party (appellant in this appeal) and they pleaded that according lo the scheme they were not bound to pay any interest as the lots were drawn within a period of nine months and the registration amount was refunded to the complainant within 3 period of three months after draw of the lots. It was further pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer.

THE learned District Forum directed the opposite party to pay interest to the complainant (a) 15% p.a. for the period in excess of 10 weeks calculated from the date of close of booking of the scheme. THEy were further directed to make the payment within a period of 30 days from the date of the order and informed them that if they failed to do so, an action would be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount in dispute was refunded to the complainant within the prescribed period. Therefore, the present complaint was not a ''Complaint'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. He was not entitled to interest on that amount. On the other hand the agent of the respondent has argued that a complaint was filed by Sh.J.K.Khanna, DIG Puria (Bihar)against the appellant before the District Forum, Bihar State. In that case the appellant compromised with Mr. Khanna and paid to him an amount of Rs. 1,850/- as interest and a sum of Rs. 150/- as cost of litigation. He submits that the present case is similar to that case and consequently the appellant cannot refuse to make the payment to him.

WE have duly considered the matter. It is not disputed that in the advertisement it was provided that the successful applicants would be allocated plots after complying with the usual business conditions and acceptance of the terms and conditions of the sale within the stipulated time prescribed by the company. It was further provided that every endeavour would be made to hold the draw of lots within 9 months of the closure of the scheme and to refund the application money without interest to unsuccessful applicants within three months thereafter. WE have been informed that the applicant who applied for the plots were more than 20,000. In order to hold a draw of such a large number of applicants the appellant required time. It is also not disputed that the draw of lots was held within a period of nine months from the closing date of the receipt of the applications and the amount was refunded to the respondent within a period of three months thereafter. Infact the amount was re-paid to some of the registrants within one month after the draw of lots. In the circumstances it is to be seen whether the present complaint is covered by the definition of the word ''complaint'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act). The word ''complaint'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act as follows : - 2.(1)(c)"complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that - (i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered loss or damage; (ii) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act;

From a perusal of the definition it is evident that sub-clauses (ii) and (iv) relate to the allegations with regard to the goods sold to the complainant. The aforesaid clauses are not applicable to the present case as no goods are involved in it. Clause (iii) is also not applicable because there was no deficiency in service, as the complainant was refunded the amount according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Now it is to be seen whether the case is covered under clause (i). It provides that if an application contains an allegation that on account of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader he suffered loss or damage that would constitute a complaint. In order to decide the question it is to be seen whether the action of the appellant in offering plots to the public on the aforementioned conditions amounts to unfair trade practice. It is not necessary to dilate upon this matter as in complaint bearing No. I.A. No. 18/90 (Chaitnya Aggarwal v. DLF Universal Limited) filed before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Commission (MRTP Commission), it was held on 18.2.92 by the Commission that no case of unfair trade practice was made out against the company. Consequently, the notice was discharged by it. The aforesaid decision was affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 1709/92 (Chaitnya Aggarwal v. DLF Universal Limited) decided on 11.5.92 by the Supreme Court and the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in limine by the learned bench. Thus the impugned scheme according to the Supreme Court does not amount to unfair trade practice. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the respondent does not fall within the definition of the word ''Complaint'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent relied upon the decision of the District Forum, Bihar State wherein an amount of Rs. 1,850/- was given as interest and a sum of Rs. 150/- as the costs of litigation to Shri J.K. Khanna the complainant. The copy of the order of the District Forum Patna dated 15.3.91 in that case has been placed on the record. It appears from the order that a settlement was arrived at between the parties and in view of that settlement the order was passed by the Forum. An affidavit dated 20.2.92 of Shri Swaroop Chand, an employee of the company, has been filed by the appellant in which he stated that in order to defend the matter in Patna he had to make three trips which entailed an expenditure of over 15,000/- to the company apart from the considerable time spent in that behalf. As the company did not have any office or representative in Patna, he had to go specially to Patna to attend the case. In addition to that the company had to incur further expenses towards fee of the lawyers. The aforesaid circumstances show that the appellant agreed to make the payment to Shri J.K. Khanna in view of a compromise between the parties. It is relevant to high-light that the decision of the MRTP Commission was rendered after the final disposal of the complaint by the Patna District Forum, on 18.2.92 and was confirmed by Supreme Court on 11.5.92.

AFTER taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the respondents are not entitled to get interest on the amount deposited by them for purchasing the plot from the appellant.

THE facts of all the appeals are same and no additional arguments have been advanced in them. THErefore, the aforesaid ratio will be applicable to all the appeals. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the appeals, set-aside the orders of the District Forum is all the appeals and dismiss the complaints. No order as to costs. Appeals allowed.