SHAMMI KAPOOR vs TECHNOLOGY PARKS LIMITED

THE applicant, Shri Shammi Kapoor has filed an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) stating that in response to various advertisements in National Dailies issued by the respondent to the effect that a residential and commercial complex called ''Park City'' was being developed on NOIDA-DADRI Road, Distt. Ghaziabad, in U.P., he applied for an industrial plot and deposited initially a sum of Rs. 26,910/- as booking amount. He was issued a receipt bearing No. TPL 329 dated 4.1.1989 for the amount deposited by him. Subsequently, he was allotted a plot No. 312 measuring 250 sq. mts. in the Electronic City, Technology Park. It was further mentioned that he continued to pay the instalments regularly when suddenly in April, 1989 he saw a notice in the local newspaper cautioning the public that certain plots in the Park City had been acquired by the UPSIDC. When he contacted the respondent he was assured that there was some confusion and that he should continue to deposit the instalments otherwise, the plot allotted to him would be cancelled. He then deposited Rs. 1,682/- on 19.1.1990 for which a receipt was issued to him by the respondent. He was also later on informed by the respondent that the dispute with U.P. Govt, had been settled and the possession of the plot would be given by 13.12.1991. Believing the respondent, he deposited an amount of Rs. 17,660/- on 25.5.1991. THErefore, he waited for possession to be given to him as promised, but there was no communication from the respondent.

WHEN he did not get the possession ofthe plot, he wrote a letter to the respondent on 25.1.1995 requesting for refund of the entire amount but the respondent neither replied to that letter nor made any refund. He therefore, made an application to the Commission alleging that the respondent had adopted unfair trade practices by making false and misleading representation about the "Park City" and requesting that the principal amount deposited by him as well as the interest @ 18% on the entire deposit may be paid to him in addition to the compensation for harassment and mental torture and legal expenses. In all, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,02,030/-. While his compensation application was pending he made a prayer for amendment to his compensation application and in the amended application, he claimed compensation amount of Rs. 1,41,557/- as against the compensation amount of Rs. 1,02,030/- in the original application.

A notice was issued to the respondent who filed a reply denying the allegations of indulgence in any unfair or restrictive trade practices. It is at this stage of the proceedings, that even the respondent''s Advocate stopped appearing on the dates of hearing and it was accordingly, set ex-parte. Even the reply to the amended compensation application was not filed by it in spite of the opportunities given to it. Initially, the respondent was represented by its Advocate, Mr. V.S. Juneja but from 17.9.1997 he stopped appearing and as stated above the ex- parte proceedings were started against the. respondent. However, on 5.3.1998 Mr. J.S. Rawat, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent and at his request another opportunity was given to him to file a reply to the amended compensation application but thereafter, he too did not appear and a reply was also not filed.

SINCE the respondent was set ex-parte, no oral evidence was recorded and even issues were not framed. It transpires that there are several cases pending against this respondent with similar allegations of luring prospective buyers of residential or commercial plots and after collecting huge amounts neither the plots were given, nor the refund of the amounts was made to them. From the facts of the case, it appears that the proposed "Park City" in Technology Park which was to be developed as a residential and commercial complex did not come up as the respondent did not have the necessary clearances and approvals from the State Government and the local Authorities. It also transpired that the respondent made false representations to the prospective buyers and thereby induced them to part with their money without giving them the promised plots in return. The respondent thus adopted and indulged in unfair trade practices and in the result, the compensation application is allowed. It appears that the applicant paid Rs. 50,457/- on several dates through cheques starting from 4.1.1989 to 25.5.1991, the details of which are reflected in Anndexure C-1 to the original compensation application of the applicant. In similar compensation applications filed by other applicants not only the amount deposited by them but interest @ 18% has also been awarded. Similarly, in this case the applicant is awarded interest @ 18% on the aggregate amount of Rs. 50,457/-. The interest will accrue from the respective dates of deposits till the date of payment by the respondent. The applicant is also awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment and mental agony undergone by him and also legal expenses of Rs. 3,000/-.

THE respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 6 weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order and file an affidavit of compliance within that time limit. C.A. allowed.