K.S.DHANRAJ vs Meerut Development Authority

THE complainant applied for a flat in HIG Category in Shatabadi Nagar, Phase-I launched by Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as MDA). As per the advertisement dated 15th August, 1989 given in the paper ''Hindustan Times'', the attractive features of the scheme were availability of a house at cheaper rates, location at one hour''s drive from Delhi, and special provision for EWS and LIG categories of house at subsidized rates with community facilities. THE complainant registered itself for an allotment of a house in category A under the hire purchase plan against 5% reserved quota for Government servants who have attained the age of 50 years. It paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 6.9.1989 after raising it as a loan from the Indian Overseas Bank, J.J. Colony, Naraina, New Delhi. THE complainant was informed of allotment of a house No. 2/273-B in-Sector 8 of the Shatabadi Nagar Housing Scheme, Phase-I. THEreafter Rs. 50,000/-was paid by the complainant on 20.2.1990 as demanded. Despite payment made, the respondent threatened to cancel the allotment for non-payment of Rs. 50,000/-. THErefore, vide letter dated 7.1.1994, the complainant was informed that as the houses of the category allotted to the complainant could not be constructed due to certain reasons, another flat bearing No. A/45 in Sector 4-B of HIG (I) category has been allotted to it. THE offer so made was declined by the applicant and the refund of the amount already deposited with interest was asked to be made. THE respondent paid Rs. 74,000/- after deducting 20% of the registration amount out of deposit of Rs 80,000/-. This practice of non-handing over the allotted house under a scheme applied for and deduction of 20% of the registration amount is contended to the unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. It is thus prayed that the respondent Authority be directed to cease the aforesaid practice if continued at present and desist from repeating the same in future. In addition, a prayer for interest @ 24% per annum on the total deposits from the date of payment and a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for the loss and agony suffered by it is asked for as compensation.

IN reply to the NOE, the respondent attributed the failure to deliver the possession of the specific flat as allotted for non-construction of the category of such plots. This is contended to be for the reasons beyond its control. The allotment of a similar flat in another locality in Shatabadi Nagar Housing Scheme Phase-II, is stated to be an offer of a fair deal on the part of the respondent. IN view of the surrender of the house by the complainant, deduction of 20% of the registration amount is stated to be as per the terms and conditions of the brochure to which the complainant is a signatory. IN absence of any provision for paying interest on the deposits in case of surrender, no interest is contended to be payable. Similar is the case in regard to amount demanded for mental agony and harassment. The allegations of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent are thus stated to be without any basis. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has or is indulging in trade practices as mentioned in the NOE ? (2) If the answer to the aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the unfair trade practices are prejudicial to consumer or consumers or public interest ? (3) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or injury due to unfair trade practices ? (4) Relief, if any.

Evidence was led on both sides by way of affidavit and counter-affidavit duly supported by the respective documents. The parties were heard at length through their respective Advocates.

WE have considered the submissions as made on both sides and have also gone through the documents filed. Admittedly, the complainant was allotted a house on an application made and registration amount as paid. This was as per the representation made and the procedure followed for allotment of a house as laid down in the brochure. It is also a fact that an allotment of another flat in Sector 4, Shatabadi Nagar Housing Scheme II came to be made in the wake of non- construction of the houses of the category as allotted to the complainant. Undeniably an alternative house as allotted was of the same category and without any additional cost of allotment. As per indication in the brochure of Shatabadi Nagar Scheme II, there is only a marginal difference in the estimated cost of two houses. It is not the case of the complainant that he alone was discriminated for allotment of a house in scheme Shatabadi Nagar, Phase-I. Reliance placed on letters intimating the payment of Rs. 50,000/- in no way advances the case of the complainant as the threat of cancellation of flat has not been carried out on the part of the respondent. Rather as requested, the deposit stands refunded to the complainant. The deduction of 20% of the registration amount was made as per terms and conditions of the agreement spelt out in the brochure. Normally the delivery of the house is given on payment of full amount towards the price of the house. The complainant had only paid Rs. 50,000/- towards first instalment in addition to the registration amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid alongwith application. As per its own version the particular flat was to be delivered in 1994 in which year the complainant was allotted another house (letter dated 31.5.1994 addressed to the respondent - Annexure N). In the circumstances, we fail to understand how the failure to deliver the house in the changed circumstances can be considered to be an unfair trade practice for the purpose of promotion of sale or supply of any gods or for provisions of any services within the meaning of Section 36A of the Act.

IT has not been denied that the deduction of 20% of the registration amount in case of surrender is not as per terms and conditions of the agreement to which the complainant is a signatory. In the circumstances, the objection raised is not tenable. As regards misrepresentation made in an advertisement issued on 2.5.1991 pertaining to Shatabadi Nagar Housing Scheme, Phase-II, that "Registered persons for the 1st Phase have already been allotted their houses" is incorrect statement which can mislead the public. Since all the flats were not given possession to the allottees, to that extent, the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practices squarely covered under Section 36A(1)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief Act). This practice is certainly not in public interest and as such the respondent is directed to cease such practice of making false representation, if still continued at present and desist from repeating the same in future. In view of the conclusion that no unfair trade practice has been established on the part of the respondent, the claim of compensation is not allowable. Otherwise too, for the aforesaid claim a separate application should have been preferred under Section 12B of the Act as the present application has not been considered as a composite one.

IN view of above, charge of unfair trade practice having been not established on the part of the respondent no cease and desist order is to be passed for allegations in regard to non-delivery of flat and deduction of 20% of the registration amount. Subject to our directions as contained in para 8 no cease and desist order is passed. NOE as issued deserves to be and is hereby discharged with no orders as to the costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. N.O.E. discharged.