MRS. VEENA GANDHI vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD.

THIS order shall dispose of Compensation Application filed by Mrs. Veena Gandhi, w/o Shri Ashok Gandhi, r/o C-680, New Friends Colony, New Delhi- 110065 (hereinafter referred to as applicant) under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s. Technology Parks Ltd., 50 & 51, Regal Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 (hereinafter referred to as respondent).

DURING 1993, the respondent issued an advertisement in various Newspapers announcing its scheme titled "Park Apartments at Vaishali, Ghaziabad. The applicant got attracted and contacted the office of the respondent, who handed over a Form bearing No. 5005 through which she opted for (800 sq. ft.) three bedroom flat and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 5.10.1993. The respondent issued Receipt No. 1939 dated 5.10.1993 for the said amount incorporating therein "Booking amount (Confirmed Allotment)". The respondent vide its letterdated31.10.1993 informed the applicant that she has been allotted a flat in the proposed scheme bearing No. 1328E on the XIII Floor in the proposed complex of an approximate super area of 800 sq.ft. and annexed a detailed the payment schedule, which is on record. The applicant deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- vide Cheque No. 907263 and respondent issued Receipt No. 2560 for the same. The applicant was then handed over the Allotment Agreement Deed, which was required to be executed subsequently. .The respondent thereafter demanded sum of Rs. 8,500/- against laying of foundation as required in terms of payment schedule. The applicant deposited this amount on 23.12.1993 and Receipt No. 2921 was issued by the respondent. Suddenly during January, 1994 a notification appeared in the local newspaper cautioning the public that the plans of the Park Apartments in Vaishali Township, Ghaziabad have not been approved and the applicant immediately contacted the respondent, who informed her that there was some misunderstanding and everything will be sorted out and she will be informed accordingly. The lady after waiting for sometime, visited the site and was shocked to see that there was no progress. Since the respondents were evading from signing the agreement and were not developing the site, she requested them to refund the sum of Rs. 53,500/- which has been deposited by her vide her letter dated 13.6.1994. Inspite of various reminders, the respondents never paid heed to her requests for refund of the amount in question. Thereafter, the applicant sent a legal notice on 2.8.1995, which too bore no fruits.

Left with no other option, the applicant approached this Commission for redressal of grievances vide her application dated 20.9.1995 praying therein to grant compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,30,760/- towards amount deposited, interest, mental torture and legal expenses. Notice under Section 12(b) of the application was issued returnable on 30.7.1996. On the day of hearing, as prayed, the respondent was allowed to file its reply within 6 weeks which was subsequently filed rebutting the averments made by the applicant. The applicant filed its rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent.

ON completion of the proceedings, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent has indulged in unfair and monopolistic trade practices as alleged by the applicant in her compensation application ? 2. Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the alleged unfair trade practices ? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for any compensation or relief ? Our answers to the aforesaid issues are as under: 1. In the affirmative. 2. In the affirmative. 3. As per the order.

The reasons for our giving the above conclusions have been discussed in this order in the succeeding paragraphs.

APPLICANT filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mrs. Veena Gandhi annexing certain documents. Mrs. Gandhi was cross-examined by Shri V.S. Juneja, Advocate for the respondent. The respondent sought an adjournment on the next date of hearing namely 28.10.1997 on the ground that its Advocate Shri V.S. Juneja is not appearing and it has not been able to engage another Advocate. Since the respondent failed even to file its evidence, the adjournment was not allowed. It was held that the respondent because of laches or any other reason adopted strategies to delay the matter and the evidence of the respondent was closed. Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent on 18.12.1997 prayed to recall the ex parte order but keeping in view the conduct of the party, the same was not recalled. However, the respondent was allowed to participate in the arguments. We have given a hearing to Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Advocate, for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent. On critical analysis of the material record and the arguments advanced by both the parties, we found that the applicant pursuant to an advertisement, booked a flat (800 sq.ft.) in Park Apartments in Vaishali Township, Ghaziabad and deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently, on allotment, she deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and again on a demand, an amount of Rs. 8,500/- was deposited by her. In all, she has deposited Rs. 20,000/- + 25/000/- + 8,500/- = Rs. 53,500 at various stages. She stopped making further payments when she saw a cautioning notification in the local newspaper under the seal of Ghaziabad Development Authority, which reads as under : "This is to inform all concerned that Ghaziabad Development Authority has not approved any building places regarding PARK Apartments in Vaishali Township of Distt. Ghaziabad as advertised in various newspapers. Anybody dealing with the same shall be doing so at his own risk."

SHE immediately contacted the respondent and was informed that there was some misunderstanding and everything will be sorted out and accordingly informed. SHE waited for six months and seeing no development asked for the refund of the amount deposited by her vide her letter dated 13.6.1994. Neither the refund was made nor the respondent responded to her.

THE respondent on the other hand took its defence that the respondent has not indulged in any monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice and, therefore, the question of any consequential loss/damage does not arise. It is a civil matter arising out of a contract entered into between the parties. THE applicant stopped making payment of installments agreed to and is a defaulter. THE respondent is suffering on account of non-payment of installments by the applicant. In various cases pertaining to Technology Parks Ltd. for its schemes in U.P. (NOIDA/Ghaziabad), the Commission has already held that the respondent company has indulged in unfair trade practices attracting the provisions of Section 36A of the Act. The Commission in its one judgment covering a batch of six cases bearing UTPE Nos. 21 to 26 of 1992 held that the advertisement issued by the respondent has misled simple and unsuspecting purchasers of the plots and has passed a "Cease and Desist" order against the respondent from indulging in the aforesaid unfair trade practices.

Since the facts of this case are also identical, we hold that the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practices as alleged by the applicant. It is quite clear that since the applicant has suffered pecuniary losses, she is entitled to relief.

IN view of the above, we direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 53,500/- deposited by her alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the dates of deposit of all the three instalments, till the same is refunded to her. In the prayer clause of the application, the applicant has sought compensation quantified to a sum of Rs. 1,30,760/-. We are not agreeable to award such huge compensation particularly when the interest at the rate of 18% is allowed from the dates of deposit. However, we are of the view that she is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of case.

THE respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amounts within 6 weeks from the date of this order and file an affidavit of compliance within 2 weeks thereafter, which shall not be later than 8 weeks from the date of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties under R.P.A.D. Application disposed of.