Om Prakash Singhal vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THIS relates to the Compensation Application filed by Shri Om Prakash Singhal under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) against the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA).

THE case of the complainant in brief is that in response to the advertisement of the respondent in this case, the GDA, he applied for a plot of land in the proposed township, Karpuripuram in 1991. THE possession of the plot was promised within three years of registration. THE applicant was allotted a plot and as demanded by the respondent he paid the registration amount, the reservation amount and five instalments amounting to Rs. 86,084/- between 8.3.1991 and 30.3.1994. After payment of the fifth instalment, he found the GDA had not even acquired the land for the Scheme and no development activity for the Scheme like the building of roads, provision of electricity, etc. had started. He, therefore, applied in May, 1995 for refund of the deposits made by him. THE respondent refunded a sum of Rs. 84,039/- in four instalments between 19.1.1996 and 26.4.1996. He alleges unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent in their dealings with him. He claims, apart from interest on his deposits, compensation for the expenses incurred by him in pursuing this case and for mental agony undergone by him. In reply to the notice issued to it, the respondent has stated that the three years period for possession of the plot was not fixed and it was only an indication of the expectation. Since there were disputes relating to the compensation to be paid to the land-owner there was delay in development work. Since the complainant requested for refund of the deposited amount saying that he was not interested in the plot, the refund was made to him after deduction of the permissible amount in accordance with Clause 10.20 of the Brochure containing the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The complainant did not protest or object at the time of withdrawal of the amount as seen from his letter dated 24th May, 1995.

After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent is or has been indulging in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application ? 2. Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damages by reasons of the alleged unfair trade practices ? 3. Relief, if any? Our answers to the above issues are as follows : 1. In the affirmative in so far as the matter of refund of deposits. 2. Yes 3. As per our order.

THE reasons for coming to the above conclusions have been discussed in this order. We gave a hearing to the complainant and the Advocate for the respondent Mr. S. Kulshrestha.

THE complainant reiterated his stand in the Application and said that the delay in handing over possession of the plot shattered his hopes and aspirations. Had the GDA not advertised for the Scheme he would have opted for some other plot. THE Advocate for the respondent drew our attention to the letter of request dated 24.5.1995 of the complainant for withdrawing his deposits which was annexed as R-l to the reply of the respondent to the Notice. In this the complainant stated "Now I am not interested in this plot and as such it is requested to please refund my deposite with G.D.A. against the plot." THE Advocate for the respondent argued that the G.D.A. refunded the amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Scheme after deducting the permissible amount. THEre was no reason indicated in the letter requesting for refund of the amount and the present stand of the complainant is an after- thought. According to him the G.D.A. had not indulged in unfair trade practice as alleged. We have perused the letter of the complainant dated 24.5.1995. The complainant admits that the letter does not contain what is stated in the application. He informs us that, if he had not applied for refund unconditionally, he would not have got his money back. We are not persuaded by this statement. The complainant is a well-educated person and he ought to know the implications of what he was writing in the letter. He has also not produced any evidence to show the reasons or the circumstances under which he withdrew from the scheme. We find that the deduction made while refunding the amount and his non-entitlement for any interest payment are in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Brochure relating to the Scheme. We, however, note that the complainant made the request for refunding the deposit on 24.5.1995 but the amount was refunded in four instalments between 19.1.1996 and 26.4.1996. There was no justification for so much delay. In this case the complainant was deprived of the use of his own money during the period of delay in the refund. When there is a provision for refund of deposits under specified circumstances, there should also be a time-limit within which such refund should be made. The respondent cannot retain the money of the depositors for unspecified periods without payment of interest after admitting their claim for refund and it amounts to an unfair trade practice.

IT is true that no specific prayer for payment of interest on the delayed refund amount by instalments has been made by the applicant in his application. He has however in prayer Clause (e) prayed for grant of "any other amount which is just and fair in the opinion of the Hon''ble Commission". This is obviously an omnibus prayer clause for grant of any other relief in monetary terms as is deemed just and proper by this Commission. Since the respondent has inordinately and unduly delayed the refund of the deposited amount and since such refund has been paid not in one lumpsum but in four instalments thereby denying to and depriving the applicant of the use of his money, the applicant has become entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment of refund to him by the respondent.

IN the above circumstances we, while not granting the other prayers of the complainant, pass a limited order that the respondent viz. Ghaziabad Development Authority should pay interest to the complainant @ 18% p.a. on the amount refunded, from the date the refund became due till it was paid to the complainant. This payment should be made within six weeks from the date of this order. The respondent is directed to file the affidavit of compliance within eight weeks from the date of this order. Application allowed.