MUKUL JAIN vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THE applicant Shri Mukul Jain has made an application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of any indulgence in unfair trade practices and stating therein that he applied for allotment of a D type plot measuring 90 sq mt. in Self Financing Scheme (SFS) Code 610 in Karpoori Puram, Ghaziabad, floated by the respondent, at an estimated cost of Rs. 81,000/- and along with his application No. 3612 deposited registration amount of Rs. 8,120/- on 5.3.1991. His grievance is that although the plot applied for by him was reserved on 28.6.1991 and, thereafter, he made payment of the reservation amount of Rs. 12,150/ - and thereafter six instalments of Rs. 10,125/- each along with interest thereon, for late payment, and even though the total amount of Rs. 97,492/ - was paid by him, within the prescribed time limit upto 30.8.1994, possession of the plot was not delivered to him. He has further complained that the respondent abandoned the aforementioned Karpoori Puram Scheme and informed him by a letter dated 1.5.1997 to take refund of amount deposited by him with 5% interest after surrendering the paid receipts issued by the respondent. In his present application the applicant has claimed not only refund of the amount with interest @ 21% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, but also compensation of Rs. 2.10 lakhs. It has also been prayed in the application that, in the alternative, a plot be allotted to him, in exchange, in either the Karpoori Puram Scheme or another scheme with compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and interest @ 18% w.e.f. July, 1994 till the date of actual payment of the compensation amount.

A notice in respect of the applicant''s Compensation Application was issued to the respondent and in reply thereto, the respondent admitted that the Karpoori Puram Scheme SFS, Code 610 under which the applicant had applied and was registered had since been abandoned, and the respondent was willing to refund the amount deposited by the applicant along with interest @ 5% provided the applicant surrendered the original receipts. On completion of pleadings the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has been indulging in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application ? (2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices ? (3) Relief, if any ?

It is not disputed or denied that the applicant had applied for a D type plot under the Karpoori Puram SFS, Code 610 floated by the respondent in 1991. It is also not disputed that the applicant deposited, in all, a sum of Rs. 97,492/- inclusive of interest for the payment, upto 30.8.1994. It is also admitted that the respondent offered to refund the entire amount with interest @ 5% and an offer to that effect was made to the applicant vide letter dated 1.10.1997. In other words, these facts are not controverted and the dispute only revolves around the rate of interest and compensation amount. Thus the point in issue, for determination, is whether the applicant is entitled to any compensation as claimed by him and also the interest on the amount deposited by him at a rate higher than that offered to him by the respondent.

IN this context, our attention has been I drawn to the order dated May 12, 2000 of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5329 of 1996 and other connected appeals... Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of INdia & Anr., II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654, wherein interest @ 12% per annum has been considered just and proper to meet the ends of justice. The case of the applicant is that the aforesaid order is on all fours and squarely covers the present proceeding before us. It :s not disputed by the learned Advocate for the respondent that the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present proceeding and the applicant is entitled to interest @ 12%. As we are bound by the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we, accordingly, direct the respondent to pay interest @ 12% on the amount deposited by the applicant from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund and likewise, the applicant is directed to surrender the original receipts as required by the respondent. As in the aforesaid order, no other compensation has been awarded, we do not consider it necessary to award the compensation claimed by the applicant in this case. Since, however, the applicant has incurred litigation expenses, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is considered reasonable and is hereby awarded. The respondent is directed to file an affidavit of compliance within six weeks from today. In view of the above we do not consider it necessary to give our findings on the issues settled in this present proceeding as the dispute is limited only to rate of interest and the compensation amount and we have followed the binding ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in toto. C.A. disposed of.