SATPAL BAKSHI vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LIMITED

THIS disposes of the application filed by Shri Sat Pal Bakshi, New Delhi under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) seeking compensation from the respondent-Technology Parks Ltd., New Delhi on the ground that the latter indulged in unfair trade practices.

THE facts as contained in the compensation application can be briefly summarised as below : THE respondent issued a Brochure in July, 1993 calling on the general public to book flats in Park Apartment Scheme at Vaishali near Ghaziabad being constructed by it. In response to this the applicant booked one flat with the respondent by paying Rs. 15,000/-as registration amount. THE respondent had promised to complete the possession of the flat within three years. THE applicant has paid a total amount of Rs. 41,000/-up to 8.8.1994. THE respondent failed to fulfil its promise to hand over the flat and has not refunded the money. Since the respondent failed to file a reply to the notice of the compensation application and was also not represented in the hearings of the Commission, the proceedings against it were set ex parte on 26.11.1998. Thereafter, the applicant filed his affidavit of evidence. Since the respondent was not appearing before the Commission, ex parte arguments advanced by Mr. N.R. Samy, Advocate for the applicant were heard on 10th February, 1999.

We have carefully gone through the records of the case. Since the respondent has filed not a reply to the compensation application and has not been appearing before the Commission, the averments made by the applicant in his application are to be taken as correct and proved. We also find that the Commission has passed orders earlier and on 12.6.1998 in the case of Shri G. Swaminathan v. Technology Parks Ltd. in CA 2/95 and on 12.10.1998 in the case of Shri Sri Ram v. Technology Parks Ltd. in CA No. 93/95 holding that the respondent had indulged in unfair trade practices with reference to the application for flats in the same scheme viz., Park Apartment, Vaishali in Ghaziabad. We are in full agreement with the orders passed in those cases and we do not consider it necessary to repeat the reasons for holding the respondent guilty of the charges. In those cases the applicants were also awarded compensation on the ground that they were entitled for the same due to indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent.

IN the premises, we hold the respondent is guilty in indulgence in unfair trade practice in this case and the applicant is entitled for compensation. We note that the applicant had paid a total amount of Rs. 41,000/- to the respondent on various dates upto 8.8.1994. We direct the respondent to refund the entire sum of Rs. 41,000/- along with interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till the date of refund. We also direct that the amount as ordered above shall be paid to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and an affidavit of compliance should be filed by the respondent within six weeks thereafter. Application disposed of.