RADHIKA ANAND vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD.

THIS order shall dispose of compensation application filed by Ms. Radhika Anand, daughter and Mrs. Rema Anand, wife of Late Shri R.C. Anand (hereinafter referred to as applicants) under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against M/s. Technology Parks Ltd., E-46, Greater Kailash Enclave Part-I, New Delhi - 110 048, its Managing Director, Shri Prabhjot Singh Sabharwal, his wife - Mrs. Harpreet Kaur and Chairman, Greater NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively).

DURING 1988, the respondents represented through advertisement Brochure that 200 acres of land was being developed by them in Village Tusiyana on NOIDA-Dadri Road. The respondents also represented that the Park City was an approved freehold residential-cum-commercial colony and that Technology Park was a separate scheme floated by the Company. The applicants allured by the advertisement booked a residential plot measuring 239.20 sq. yards in the Park City scheme. The applicants also entered into an agreement dated 13.1.1989 wherein terms and conditions of payment and handing over the plot are given. The said agreement is on record. The applicants paid a sum of Rs. 81,650.68 (leaving a balance of Rs. 14,029.32 due to no response from the respondent, no development work and not handing over the vacant physical possession of the plot to the applicants including development charges but less sewerage charges).

The respondents allotted a plot bearing No. H-240 measuring 239.20 sq. yards to the applicants in the said residential complex.

SUBSEQUENTLY, the respondents again misled the applicant that they had won their case at Allahabad High Court and they are now in a position to develop the Park City complex. The respondents vide their letter dated 27.11.1993 demanded the balance payment of Rs. 14,029.32 on the plea that they are getting approval and sanction from R-4 but the same never materialised. Left with no other alternative, the applicants sent a legal notice dated 26.6.1997 to the respondents requesting them that if they are not in a position to hand over the possession of the plot in question, they should refund the deposited amount with interest @ 24% p.a. within 15 days. Since the respondents never responded to the legal notice, the applicants approached this Commission vide their application under Section 12B of the Act.

THE applicants alleged in their application that despite making full payment of cost of land amounting to Rs. 81,650.68 paid from October 1988 to June, 1991, the respondents have neither given them the possession of the plot nor they have the approval of the competent Authority to develop the colony and hand over the possession of plots. Since the acts of the respondents to withhold the money of the applicants without any reason is an act of unfair trade practice, the applicants claimed refund of amount deposited alongwith 24% interest as well as compensation for escalation in cost of land and for miscellaneous expenses. Notice under Section 12B of the application was issued returnable on 2.7.1999, which was sent by the office on 22.4.1999 by RPAD and was received back undelivered. On 2.7.1999, fresh notice was directed to be issued, which was sent by the office through the Jail Superintendent on 15.7.1999. On 30.9.1999 it was found that the notice was not received back and more than 30 days had passed, the presumption of service was raised and the proceedings against them were set ex parte. The applicants were given the liberty to file their evidence by way of affidavits.

APPLICANTS filed their evidence by way of affidavit of Mrs. Rema Anand alongwith supporting documents. Cross-examination of the applicants'' witness could not take place since the proceedings against the respondents were already ex parte.

I heard the ex parte final arguments advanced by Mr. Ajay Malviya, Advocate for the applicants. On analysis of the record of the case, I found that the respondents never put in their appearance or responded to the notices issued by the Commission. In fact, it is a case of non-rebuttal. Taking cognizance of the averments made by the applicants in their compensation application, pleadings, material/receipts on record and ex parte arguments advanced by Mr. Ajay Malviya, Advocate for the applicants, I found that the applicants deposited a total amount of Rs. 81,650.68 on the respondent''s promise of handing over possession of a plot measuring 239.20 sq. yds. within 3 years. Since the respondents never handed over the plot to the applicants even after more than 10 years, I come to the conclusion that the act of the respondents of keeping the applicants'' deposited money for a long time and not delivering the possession of the plot in question constitutes deficiency of service and falls within the provisions of Section 36A of the MRTP Act, 1969.

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 respondents 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 other 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 are squarely covered by the aforesaid findings of the Commission, I hold that the respondents have indulged in unfair trade practics as alleged by the applicants. It is quite clear that since the applicants have suffered pecuniary losses, they are entitled to relief. In view of the above, I direct the respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 81,650.68 to the applicants alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the dates of deposit of all the instalments, till the final realisation of the said amount.

IN the prayer clause of the application, the applicants have sought compensation towards escalation of cost of land and cost of the case. IN view of the interest @ 18% p.a. awarded, I am not inclined to award compensation towards escalation in the cost of the land. However, I am of the view that they are entitled for compensation to the tune Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of the case. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amounts to the applicants 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.