SUMITA BHATTACHARYA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS petition has been filed under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for short), for grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 2,10,000/- on account of escalation in the cost of the flats during the period from August, 1996 till the date of filing of the petition i.e. 18.2.1997 plus interest at the rate of 18% on the application money of Rs. 50,000/-.

THE respondent, namely, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) floated the IX Self Financing Scheme during the period from 8.8.1996 to 20.9.1996. In response thereto, the applicant applied for allotment of a flat and deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of registration money, through Bank Draft No. 840866 dated 19th September, 1996 drawn on the State Bank of India, NDSE, Part-II Branch, New Delhi. It has been stated that the petitioner received a communication dated 1.1.1997 from the DDA informing her that she had been found ''ineligible'' for allotment of flat. THE registration money of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by her was also refunded to her. It has been alleged that her name was not included in the draw of lots because her application had been misplaced by the office of the DDA. THE petitioner has concluded that the aforesaid action of the DDA amounts to unfair trade practices as a result of which she has been deprived of the opportunity of allotment of a flat elsewhere. Hence, this application for compensation has been preferred by her in the Commission. In its reply, the respondent has submitted that under the IXth Self Financing Scheme, the DDA received approximately 60,000 applications for allotment of 6,000 flats. It has been further submitted that the name of the applicant was included in the draw of lots and the application of the petitioner was given computerised No. 4801 in batch No. 598. Since the applicant remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots, the registration amount of Rs. 50,000/- was refunded to her vide refund order dated 1.1.1997. It has also been clarified in the reply that inadvertantly, the word "ineligible" printed on the refund order was not crossed/deleted as the cheques/refund orders were prepared in advance in respect of all the registrants. After the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application ? (2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of these unfair trade practices ? (3) Relief, if any.

We have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The facts and issues involved in this petition are similar to those in R.T.P.E. 97 of 1997 and C.A. No. 183 of 1998, which have already been dismissed by the Commission''s order dated 31.10.2000. From the facts on record which are undisputed, we do not find any force in the petitioner''s allegation that the DDA is guilty of indulgence in unfair trade practices. Petitioner''s allegation that her name was not included in the draw of lots, has been rebutted by the respondent in its reply. In the reply, it has been clearly stated that the applicant''s name was included in the draw of lots and the petitioner''s application was given computerised No. 4801 in batch No. 598. The applicant having been found unsuccessful, the registration money deposited by her was refunded to her as stipulated in the terms and conditions which were duly accepted by the applicant and were, therefore, binding on her. Under the aforesaid terms and conditions, no interest was payable to the registrants, if the refund was made within the stipulated period which was done in the instant case. This being so, the DDA cannot be faulted for non-allotment of flat to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, no case of unfair trade practice is made out against the respondent nor any loss/damage has been caused to the applicant on this count. Hence, the compensation application is dismissed with no order as to costs. C.A. dismissed.