SOHAN SINGH ALLAGH vs Meerut Development Authority

THE applicant, Shri Sohan Singh Allagh has made an application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief), charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices and complaining therein that he deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- through bank draft at the time of booking a two bedroom flat in Shatabadi Nagar proposed to be developed by the respondent, the Meerut Development Authority. It has been further stated that he deposited a total amount of Rs. 1,50,900/- in instalments as per the schedule of payment and he also deposited an additional amount of Rs. 40,000/- as he was directed by the respondent in order to obtain the possession of the flat, in question, within five months from the date of the deposit of the said amount. THE grievance of the applicant is that although he deposited the amount, the possession of the flat was not handed over to him and in the meantime, due to the sad demise of his wife and two sons, he decided not to shift to Shatabadi Nagar where the flat in question, was to be built and accordingly, he requested the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by him with interest.

WE do not think it necessary to go into the pleadings or the reply filed by the respondent. Suffice it to mention here that the proposed flats have not been constructed and the respondent has not denied the facts qua booking of the flat and payment of the above mentioned amount by the applicant. In fact, the learned Advocate for the respondent, on the last date of hearing, asked for an adjournment so that he could give an offer of refund of the amount with interest to the applicant and thus bring about an out of Court settlement of the dispute. The learned Advocate representing the respondent today states, under instructions, that the refund of the amount with interest @ 6% only can be made to the applicant. In other words, the amount deposited by the applicant is not disputed and it is also not in dispute that the applicant is entitled to refund of the amount paid by him towards the cost of the flat in question. Thus, the dispute now revolves around the rate of interest which is to be paid to the applicant. In this context, we are guided by the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Anr., II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654=JT 2000 (7) SC 256, Civil Appeal No. 5329 of 1996 wherein interest @ 12% in such cases has been considered to be reasonable. Accordingly, we direct the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the applicant for the flat in question, with interest @ 12% to be calculated for the entire period the amount remained with the respondent. Legal expenses amounting to Rs. 2,200/- incurred by the applicant and claimed in the compensation application appear to be reasonable and are awarded accordingly.

The respondent is directed to refund the amount deposited by the applicant with interest @ 12% and also pay an amount of Rs. 2,200/- as litigation cost and also file an affidavit by way of compliance of this order within six weeks. C.A. disposed of.