R.B.SAXENA vs VICE-PRESIDENT, GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

APPLICANT, Shri R.B. Saxena has made an application for compensation under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) stating that in response to an advertisement, he applied for a house in Self Financing Scheme in Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad and paid registration amount of Rs. 44,000/- on 7.2.1992 and later, reservation amount of Rs. 44,000/- on 10.4.1993. The grievance of the applicant is that although in the advertisement, it was mentioned that the houses were ready for possession, he found, even after two years, that the houses were not fit for occupation as the basic amenities such as, electricity, water, sewerage etc. had not yet been made available and therefore, there was no alternative for him except to ask for refund of the deposits made by him. It has been further stated that he met the Vice-Chairman of the respondent in connection with his request for refund and he ordered refund but he was not paid the full amount but only Rs. 77,000/- in two instalments of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 37,000/ through cheques dated 17.2.1995 and 9.3.1995 respectively. His grievance is that deduction of Rs. 11,000/- should not have been made and full refund of Rs. 88,000/- with interest @ 21% should have been given to him.

IN reply, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent that the applicant was given the reservation letter in respect of the house applied for by him on 4.3.1992 and although he was asked to deposit Rs. 3,96,000/- towards the cost, he failed to do so except for the registration amount and reservation amount totalling Rs. 88,000/- only. It has also been stated that he was duly allotted a House No. P-250, HIG Duplex, Pratap Vihar on 9.4.1992 but he defaulted in payments of the balance amount. It has been clarified that at his request, refund of the deposited amount after a deduction of 25% of the registration amount in accordance with Clause 10.30(ii) of the Brochure was given to him. On completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practices as alleged in the petition ? (2) Whether the said unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the consumer and consumers in general? (3) Whether any damage or loss has occurred to the applicant due to the above ? (4) Relief, if any.

4.The main grouse of the applicant is that when he asked for refund, his deposits totalling Rs. 88,000/- should have been paid back to him and deduction of Rs. 11,000/- should not have been made. His contention is that he asked for refund because the houses in Pratap Vihar were not fit for occupation and basic amenities like water supply and electricity connection had not been provided by the respondent. The case of the respondent, on the other hand is that although a House No. P-250, HIG Duplex was allotted to him, he did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,96,000/- and moreover, as he surrendered the allotment of his own accord, he was entitled to refund as per Clause 10.30 of the Brochure. According to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 10.30,25% deduction is to be made from the registration amount in case of default in payment by the allottee or where an allotment is cancelled on account of breach of the terms and conditions or an allotment is surrendered by him. In the present case, it is not disputed or denied that it is the applicant who surrendered the allotment and asked for refund. It thus appears that the deduction of Rs. 11,000/- has been made in accordance with Clause 10.30(ii) as the applicant himself surrendered the allotment. 5. As regards payment of interest on the deposits, Clause 10.40 makes it very clear that no interest is to be paid when allotment is surrendered or it is cancelled on account of breach of terms and conditions. In view of the above, there is no escape from the conclusion that no case of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices by or on behalf of the respondent has been made out and no loss or damage is shown to have been caused to the applicant as a result of any unfair trade practices. It appears that the applicant has himself surrendered the allotment and therefore, he can''t claim to have suffered any loss or damage. The respondent has followed the provisions of Clause 10.40 of the Brochure and can''t be faulted for that. 6. In view of the above, the compensation application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. C.A. dismissed.