NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD.

THIS order shall dispose of Compensation Application filed by Shri Narender Kumar Gupta (hereinafter referred to as applicant) under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against M/s. Technology Parks Ltd., through its Managing Director/Chairman, Shri P.S. Sabharwal, (hereinafter referred to as respondent).

DURING 1988, the respondent represented through advertisements that the proposed Hi-Tech Technology Park/Park City would be developed in Block-H, Village Tusiyana, Block Bisrakh, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (Noida - Dadri Road). The applicant allured by the advertisements booked a plot by making a payment of Rs. 25,833/- and the respondent issued Receipt No. 1602 dated 25.10.1988 for the same. Accordingly, the respondent allotted a plot bearing No. H-366 measuring 135 sq. mtrs. for a total consideration of Rs. 64,584/- against the booking of the applicant. The balance consideration amount (60%) was to be paid in 36 instalments of Rs. 1,076.40 per month with effect from 1.12.1988. A plot buyer''s agreement was executed between the applicant and the respondent on 21.12.1988, which was signed by the Managing Director of the respondent Company. The applicant paid the total consideration price of Rs. 58,125.60 leaving a balance of Rs. 6,458.40, which was to be paid at the time of handing over the possession of the said plot. The respondent kept on informing the applicant from time-to-time that the plot is being developed. In addition, the respondent through its Advocate, Mr. Suresh Vohra issued a public notice that the development of the project is in full swing but in reality there was no development in the said project of the respondent. The applicant waited for years for the physical possession of the said plot. In the end, he requested the respondent either to allot the plot or to refund his deposits but all in vain. According to the applicant, withholding of his money deposited towards cost of plot by the respondent constitutes deficiency of service and is covered under the unfair trade practice of misrepresentation of the facts attracting the provisions of Section 36A of the Act. Since the acts of the respondent to withholding the money of the applicant without any reason is an act of unfair trade practice, the applicant approached this Commission vide an application under Section 12-B of the Act, claiming therein a total sum of Rs. 2,58,125.60 (Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages for mental tension and agony + Rs. 58,125.60 as the amount deposited by him) alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the dates of the deposits till the payment is made.

Notice under Section 12(b) of the application was issued returnable on 30.5.1997. The respondent despite proper service did not put in his appearance and a fresh notice returnable on 16.10.1997 was issued by the Commission.

THE respondent filed its reply in the Commission in which it took its defence that it 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 and cannot be tried by this Commission. However, the amount of Rs. 58,125.60 deposited by the applicant is not disputed by the respondent. The applicant in its rejoinder reaffirmed his contentions and rebutted the stand taken by the respondent in its reply.

ON completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as indicated in the Notice of Enquiry ? 2. Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage as a result of these unfair trade practices ? 3. Relief, if any.

Applicant filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Narender Kumar Gupta alongwith supporting documents. Cross-examination of the applicant''s witnesses could not take place since none appeared on behalf of the respondent on the subsequent hearings. Accordingly, the proceedings against the respondent were set ex parte and the case was fixed for ex parte final arguments. I heard the ex parte arguments advanced by Ms. Anjana Prabhakar, Advocate for the applicant.

ON perusal of the material on record and the ex parte arguments advanced by the Advocate for the applicant, I found that the applicant pursuant to an advertisement, booked a residential plot in Block ''B'' of Park City Project in Village Tusiyana, Block Bisrakh, Tehsil Dadri, Distt. Ghaziabad (Noida - Dadri Road) and paid an amount of Rs. 25,833/-. In response to the said booking the respondent allotted a plot No. H-366 of size 135 sq. mtrs. (161.46 sq. yds.) @ Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. Total amount to be paid for the said plot was fixed at Rs. 64,584/- to be paid by the applicant in 36 monthly instalments. The applicant paid an amount of Rs. 58,125.60 leaving Rs. 6,458.40 to be paid at the time of handing over the possession. A plot buyers agreement was also executed on 21.12.1988. The respondent kept on informing the complainant that the project is being developed. This fact was also represented by the respondent through public notices. The complainant approached the respondent several times with a request to handover the possession of the plot or to refund the deposits amount of Rs. 58,125.60 with interest but to no avail. According to the applicant, holding of deposited money by the respondent constitutes deficiency of service and it is liable to pay damages for causing mental agony to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- besides refunding of money deposited by the complainant alongwith 24% interest. The respondent stopped appearing or responding to the notices issued by the Commission except filing the reply.

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. THE Commission in C.A. No. 131/93, C.A. No. 201/93, C.A. No. 244/94, C.A. No. 217/94, C.A. No. 236/94 and C.A. No. 213/94 and many more cases also has held that the respondent Company has indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the Act in terms of misleading the members of public and of alluring them with false advertisement and has awarded compensation to the applicants. Since the facts of this case are also identical and the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid findings of the Commission, I 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, he is entitled to relief.

In view of the above, I direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 58,125.60 to the applicant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the dates of deposit of all the 36 instalments, till the same is refunded to him.

IN the prayer clause of the application, the applicant has sought compensation towards mental agony to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. I am not agreeable to award such huge compensation particularly when the interest at the rate of 18% is allowed from the dates of deposit. However, I am of the view that he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards 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. C.A. disposed of.