RATTAN LAL vs U.P.AVAS AVAM VIKAS PARISHAD

THE applicant, Shri Rattan Lal, has made an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 stating therein that he applied for allotment of a house under the Self Financing Scheme 94-A of the respondent and also made a cash deposit of Rs. 33,000/- on 23.12.1993 in the Allahabad Bank, Rampur. It has been further stated that the respondent, according to the brochure, was to give allotment of the house in question, within one year from the date of registration.

THE grievance of the applicant is that the respondent did not make the allotment of the house in question, and when he approached the respondent for getting either allotment of the house in question or refund of the amount deposited by him, the deposit of Rs. 33,000/- was refunded by the respondent through a cheque dated 9.6.1997 drawn on the State Bank of India but no interest on the deposit was paid by the respondent, initially. THEreafter when he approached the respondent again, interest @ 6% amounting to Rs. 6,765/- was paid to him on 14.7.1998 through a Cheque No. 777309. It has been further complained by the applicant that since the respondent is charging interest @ 18% from the applicants/allottees under its various schemes, interest at the same rate should be paid to him by the respondent. In reply, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent that interest @ 6% was admissible in terms of the condition 7.2 of the brochure and paid to the applicant. On completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application ? (2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices ? (3) Relief, if any.

An affidavit of evidence was filed by the applicant and a counter affidavit of evidence was tendered on behalf of the respondent. No oral evidence was led by either of the parties.

We have heard the applicant, who has been appearing in person, as well as the learned Advocate for the respondent. The dispute is regarding the rate of interest payable by the respondent on the deposit of Rs. 33,000/- made by the applicant. It is not disputed or denied that the interest @ 6% has already been paid to the applicant by the respondent. The point for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to a higher rate of interest than has been actually paid to him by the respondent. In such cases we are guided by the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 12.5.2000 in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority, etc. v. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5329/96), reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC), we have followed this order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in similar cases involving various Housing Development Authorities including the Ghaziabad Development Authority, an authority set up by the Government of Uttar Pradesh like the respondent, U.P. Avas Avam Vikas Parishad. We are of the considered view that the above order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is on all fours and applicable in the present case. The applicant has suffered loss as a consequence of denial of allotment of a house to him despite the assurance contained in the brochure issued by the respondent that allotment would be offered within one year from the date of registration. A false representation or a misrepresentation is an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The applicant admittedly deposited an amount of Rs. 33,000/- as he was required to do, and in the event of non-allotment of the house, in the light of the aforesaid order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, he is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on his deposit. Therefore, the respondent is directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum instead of 6%, already paid by the respondent on the deposit made by the applicant and for the period the amount remained with the respondent. The respondent is further directed to comply with the order of this Commission within six weeks and file an affidavit by way of compliance within two weeks thereafter. Application disposed of.