RASHMI KANTA SHARMA vs P.S.SABHARWAL

THE applicant has approached the Commission for grant of compensation under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) on account of the loss/damage suffered by him due to the unfair trade practices alleged to have been adopted by the respondent. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent advertised its residential scheme by the name of "Park City" in various newspapers for the sale of plots. In response to this advertisement, the applicant applied for allotment of a plot measuring 107.64 sq. yds. and paid a sum of Rs. 8,073/- as booking amount vide receipt No. 3247 dated 27.1.1994. THE applicant further deposited an amount of Rs. 3,027.40 on 22.3.1994 vide receipt No. 5244 and entered into an agreement with the respondent on 29.3.1994. Subsequently, the applicant deposited a total amount of Rs. 69,630.20 from 15.4.1994 to 18.1.1996 towards the payment of the remaining instalments. In response to the letter of the respondent, an amount of Rs. 6,458.40 was also paid by the applicant on 26.6.1996 towards the sewerage charges. After making these payments, the applicant contacted the respondent several times to ascertain the date of handing over of possession of the said plot. But the respondent always gave evasive answers. THE applicant has paid a sum of Rs. 80,730.60 to the respondent in addition to a sum of Rs. 6,458.40 by way of sewerage charges. Despite having paid the full price of the plot, the respondent has failed to offer possession of the plot. Aggrieved by this, the applicant has filed the present application alleging adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices, as defined under Section 36A of the MRTP Act by the respondent. THE applicant has claimed refund of Rs. 87,189/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, agony and tension undergone by the applicant at the hands of the respondent.

NOTICE of compensation under Section 12B of the MRTP Act was sent to the respondent by Registered Post on 6.4.1999. The respondent neither filed a reply to the NOTICE of compensation nor entered into appearance in the Court. As more than 30 days had elapsed after the service of the notice, a presumption of service on the respondent was raised in terms of the provisions contained in Order V, Rule 19A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act (GCA), 1897 and the respondent was set ex parte on 12.7.1999. Accordingly ex parte arguments presented by Mr. Sanjeev Nirwani, learned Advocate for the applicant were heard on 23.9.1999. It was argued by the learned Advocate for the applicant that on his part, the applicant did all that he was required to do in compliance of the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement entered into between the applicant and the respondent. The applicant paid all the instalments aggregating to Rs. 80,730.60 in respect of the plot applied for under the scheme launched by the respondent. The applicant also paid the additional amount of Rs. 6,458.40 by way of sewerage charges. The respondent, however, failed to give possession of the plot to the applicant without any rhyme and reason and thereby indulged in the unfair trade practices, as defined in Section 36A of the MRTP Act. To buttress his arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that this is a covered case and a number of orders have already been passed by the Commission awarding compensation in similar cases. By way of example he cited CA No. 144/98 decided by the Commission on 8.7.1999 and also submitted a photocopy of the same.

I have gone through the record and have also carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant. The facts of this case are similar to the case cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant. The facts on record undoubtedly establish that although the applicant fulfilled his part of the agreement, the respondent failed to honour its commitment as spelt out in the agreement and the scheme advertised in the newspapers. This is a deficiency in service which tantamounts to adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices, as defined in Section 36A of the MRTP Act. On account of the unfair trade practices, thus adopted by the respondent, the applicant has suffered a loss which merits award of compensation under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act. In other similar cases also, the Commission has awarded compensation and the order cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant is just one of such cases which fully cover the instant case in view of the similar facts and circumstances of the instant case.

IN the light of the foregoing discussion, the applicant is awarded compensation by way of refund of Rs. 87,189/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment by the respondent. IN other similar cases also, interest has been allowed @ 18% per annum. Although the applicant has claimed damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, agony and tension undergone by him at the hands of the respondent, I consider that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be enough for the purpose to meet the ends of justice. The respondent is directed to pay the compensation thus awarded to the applicant within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and file an affidavit of compliance within two weeks thereafter. C.A. allowed.