MRS. USHA THAPA vs Meerut Development Authority

THE applicant, Mrs. Usha Thapa has filed an application for compensation under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices, and stating, therein, that she had booked a plot in the Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme, Phase II of the respondent, on 29.11.1989 and paid the registration amount of Rs. 4,500/- and she was also allotted a type ''D'' plot No. 3/480, Sector-8 in the aforesaid scheme. It has also been mentioned by her that the payment schedule contained in instalment letter No. 2299 dated 31.10.1990 was sent to her by the respondent and pursuant thereto, she deposited the allotment money of Rs.9,000/- on 27.2.1990 with the respondent''s official banker, the Andhra Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. She has further stated that she has paid a total amount of Rs. 56,340/- (Rs. 45,000/- towards the cost of the plot and Rs. 11,340/- as interest). Her grievance is that even though she deposited the entire amount demanded by the respondent, she did not get the possession of the plot, in question, and instead, an offer of an alternate plot was made to her, but she was not interested in the same, and she requested for refund of the amount of Rs. 56,340/- with interest vide her letter dated 8.11.1996, but she did not get the refund in spite of repeated reminders. It has been further stated by her that the respondent vide its letter dated 11.4.1997 asked her to deposit the original documents so that her request for refund of the amount could be processed. Consequently, she provided the original documents and receipts but the respondent instead of refunding the amount offered her an alternative plot vide its letter dated 20.5.1997. She thereupon, informed the respondent that she was not interested in the alternative offer and that the deposited amount be refunded to her with interest, by a Bank draft of that amount.

IN its reply, the respondent has denied the allegation of unfair trade practices and stated that the time for handing over the possession of the plot was approximate, and was dependent on the progress in the development of the area, where the plot was situated. It has been further mentioned in the reply that an alternative plot was offered to the applicant as the development work in the sector where the plot was booked by her was not progressing and plots were not available for allotment. It has also been mentioned that the applicant is entitled to refund of the amount without interest as per the rules of the respondent. 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 alleged unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the interest of the consumer/consumers generally ? (3) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices ? (4) Relief, if any.

The applicant filed an affidavit of evidence and was also cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the respondent. However, no affidavit of evidence was filed on behalf of the respondent.

WE have heard the applicant who has been appearing in person as well as the learned Advocate for the respondent. From the facts brought on record, it transpires that the respondent has not been able to give possession of the plot Type ''D'', No. 3/480, Sector-8 in Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme Phase-II booked by the applicant and for which she paid its cost as well as the interest amounting to Rs. 56,340/-. It has also not been denied by the respondent that there was inordinate delay in the development of the area where the plot was booked and as a result, its possession could not be given but an offer of an alternative plot was made to the applicant who did not accept it and the applicant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited by her, without any interest. As the applicant paid the entire amount as per the demand letters of the respondent and the amount has remained with the respondent for all these years, it is only fair and reasonable that its refund should be given to her with interest @ 12%. Interest @ 12% is considered reasonable and to meet the ends of justice should be paid to her. It is not her fault that the respondent could not develop the area after accepting the payment from the applicant and allotting Type ''D'' plot No. 3/480, Sector-8. Even if she had kept the amount as a fixed deposit in a Bank, she would have earned interest at the rate of about 12% or so and, therefore, it is only fair that the respondent should pay interest on her deposit. Moreover, the respondent has charged interest from the applicant for the delayed payments and, therefore, in all fairness, should pay interest @ 12% to her. In awarding the interest @ 12% we are guided by the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5329 of 1996 reported in Judgments Today II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)= IV (2000) SLT 654=JT 2000 (8) SC 154. Following the above mentioned order in toto, we have not awarded any compensation to the applicant for mental agony and harassment. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 56,340/- with interest @ 12% for the entire period from the date of payment by the applicant till the date of its actual refund and also file an affidavit by way of compliance within six weeks. C.A. disposed of.