SANTHANAM IYANGAR vs VICE CHAIRMAN, MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

A complaint has been filed under Section 10(a)(i) read with Section 2(o)(ii) and Section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) by Santhanam Iyangar stating that he booked a plot measuring 180 sq. mtrs. in the Scheme titled "Shatabdi Nagar", Phase-I in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent, Meerut Development Authority. He further stated that he paid Rs. 8,000/- as booking advance and he was allotted plot No. A-68 in Sector-I and that as advised by the respondent through the letter of allotment he deposited the allotment amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 15.12.1992 through a bank draft. After about a year and a half he was informed by the respondent vide its letter dated 15.7.1993 that the price of the plot had been enhanced from Rs. 81,000/- to Rs. 1,08,000/-. When he protested to the respondent and refused to pay the enhanced amount, his allotment was cancelled and the intimation about the cancellation was conveyed to him vide letter dated 18.4.1994. It was further added that since he needed the plot, he wrote to the Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority stating that as he was not in a position to pay the enhanced amount he should be given a smaller plot of 90 sq. mtrs. and the booking amount and allotment money already paid by him be adjusted accordingly. He was however, informed by the respondent vide letter dated 11.1.1995 that his request for a smaller p lot could not be acceded to as there was no plot in lower category and the registration amount deposited by him had been forfeited. Thereafter, he also sent a legal notice to the respondent.

THE applicant/complainant also filed an application under Section 12A of the Act for restraining the respondent from cancelling the allotment. As the complaint disclosed prima facie unfair and restrictive trade practices by and on behalf of the respondent, a Notice of Enquiry was ordered to be issued under Sections 2(o)(ii) and 36A(1) of the MRTP Act. THE respondent in its written statement stated that the applicant/ complainant was asked several times to either deposit the original receipt of the amount paid by him in case he wanted to refund or deposit the balance instalments for the plot. It was further stated that the allotment was cancelled as per the Rule 16 of the rules and regulations of the Meerut Development Authority contained in the Registration Book and likewise the initial amount was forfeited. It was also mentioned that in the Registration Book, it was also indicated that the cost of the plot of Rs. 81,000/- was approximate and when the price was enhanced, the applicant was duly informed. On completion of pleading, the following issues were framed. (1) Whether the respondent has been indulging in or has indulged in restrictive trade practices and unfair trade practices as alleged in the NOE? (2) If the answer to the foregoing issue is in the affirmative whether the unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest or the interest of the consumer or consumers generally and whether the restrictive trade practices are not prejudicial to public interest ? No oral evidence was led and only on affidavit was filed by the applicant/complainant. No affidavit of evidence was filed by or on behalf of the respondent despite repeated opportunities. We have heard the Advocates for the applicant/ complainant as well as the respondent. The issues that have to be decided are whether the respondent adopted or indulged in restrictive and unfair trade practices and whether these objectionable trade practices are prejudicial to public interest and the interest of the applicant/ complainant. The fact that the scheme for allotment of plots in Shatabdi Nagar was advertised is not denied or disputed by the respondent. It is also admitted that the applicant/ complainant applied for a plot measuring 180 sq. mtrs. and its price initially was Rs. 81,000/- and was so communicated to him. It is also not disputed that the applicant/complainant also deposited the registration amount as well as the allotment amount and was allotted a plot measuring 180 sq. mtrs. in the Shatabdi Nagar under that advertised Scheme. The respondent has obviously not entertained the request for smaller plot and also not refunded the amount deposited by the applicant/complainant. The applicant/complainant has also stated that he indicated to the respondent his compelling circumstances regarding constraint of funds and his inability to pay balance instalments of the enhanced amount and resultantly his request for a smaller plot. As the respondent had no smaller plots, the refund of the amount was required to be made to the applicant/complainant under the rules. As refund was not made by the respondent the applicant/complainant has made a grievance of it and filed the instant complaint. The respondent also did not file any affidavit by way of evidence and in support of its contentions made at the time of final arguments.

From the above facts it is obvious that the respondent has not been able to refund the amount to the applicant/complainant who as discussed above is not willing and is not in a position to pay the enhanced amount and the respondent is not in a position to offer a smaller plot. In the course of the arguments before us, the Advocate for the respondent offered to refund the amount with interest, if the Commission so directed. The applicant/complainant''s case is that he had booked a plot and also paid the initial amount and he would have paid the full amount of Rs. 81,000/- also as this amount was within his means. It also transpired that he demanded a plot at the original price indicated to him when he booked it. Since according to the respondent only approximate price of the plot had been indicated at that time and if due to certain reasons the price was required to be enhanced and the enhanced amount is not within the means of the applicant/complainant, refund of the amount should have been made to him. It is only fair that the refund with interest should be given to him as has been fairly offered by the Advocate for the respondent. Actually, neither the request for a smaller plot was met, nor the refund of the amount was made by the respondent. From the above facts there is no doubt that the respondent has been guilty of unfair and restrictive trade practices insofar as a representation was made to the applicant/complainant that a plot of 180 sq. mtrs. would be made available to him for a consideration of Rs. 81,000/-. It is not in dispute that the plot was not made available and the refund of the amount was also not made by the respondent and thus indulged in unfair trade practices. If the refund had been made immediately after the applicant/complainant conveyed his inability to pay the enhanced amount, he could have invested it in some other property or made use of it elsewhere. By denying him the opportunity of investing it elsewhere and by enhancing the price and in the process imposed on him unjustified cost, the respondent can be said to have adopted restrictive trade practices within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Act, and as a consequence, prejudice has been caused to public interest and the interest of the applicant/complainant. These are our findings on the two issues posed for our consideration. We accordingly direct that the respondent cease the restrictive and unfair trade practices being indulged in by it and also give on undertaking that it will desist from doing so in future.

WE also accept the offer made by the Advocate for the respondent and direct that a plot within the originally indicated amount may be given or if a smaller plot is not available, a refund of the deposit made by the applicant/ complainant with interest @ 18% for the period the amount remained deposited with the respondent be made to him. Compliance of this order may be reported within six weeks of pronouncement of the order. Complaint allowed.