VED PRAKASH vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THE applicant, Shri Ved Prakash, has made an application, under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") stating therein, that he applied for a plot of land measuring 112 sq. mtrs. under Property Category Plot-D (Code 740) Scheme Code 539 and paid an amount of Rs. 7,210/- to the respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority on 29th October, 1988, as Reservation Amount. It has been further stated that the respondent issued a Reservation Letter dated 10th February, 1989, indicating therein that the estimated cost of the plot and also the payment schedule comprising 6 instalments required to be paid by the applicant towards the cost of the plot. It has been further complained by the applicant that although the entire amount, according to payment schedule, given in the Reservation Letter, was paid, possession of the plot in question has not been given to him. It has been however mentioned by him that vide letter dated 21st November, 1998, the respondent refunded the amount of Rs. 57,075/- deposited by him with interest @ 5% per annum, vide cheque No. 0520065, dated 6th October, 1998 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Ghaziabad.

A notice in respect of the aforesaid application was issued to the respondent and the respondent, in its reply, has stated that it was not possible to allot the plot, in question, to the applicant. In view of the various Writ Petitions filed by the land owners, whose land was acquired, and the order dated 24th April, 1991 of the Hon''ble High Court of Allahabad staying the implementation of the aforesaid scheme of the respondent. It has been further mentioned that the stay was operational up to 16th December, 1993 when the Writ Petitions challenging the acquisition of the land, were dismissed. It has been further added that the matter was then taken to the Hon''ble Supreme Court by the land owners, whose land had been acquired for the aforesaid scheme, and the same was disposed of by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide its orders dated 12th April, 1996 and 19th July, 1996. It has been thus pointed out that there was no delay on the part of the respondent and the refund of Rs. 57,075/- was made to the applicant, vide cheque No. 0520065 dated 6th October, 1998, with interest @ 5% per annum, after deducting TDS of Rs. 1,770/-. The cheque, however, was not encashed by the applicant, as according to him the entire amount deposited by him was not refunded and also the interest paid on the deposit was only 5% whereas the respondent was charging interest @ 18% on delayed instalments. On completion of pleadings the following issues were framed : (1) Whether respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged by the applicant in the Compensation Application ? (2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices? (3) Relief, if any.

We have heard the learned Counsels for the applicant as well as that of the respondent and considered the relevant record. Learned Advocate for the respondent states that it is possible that the refund of the entire amount deposited by the applicant has not been made, as the exact amount can be ascertained from receipts issued by the respondent but if there is an amount which is outstanding, it can be refunded subject to production of the original receipts which the applicant is required to surrender. It has also been pointed out, on behalf of the respondent, that the plot, in question, had not been allotted to the applicant and the Reservation letter issued to him was also cancelled and, therefore, the applicant was entitled only to refund of the deposit made by him.

Since the refund of the deposit was made in November, 1998, the interest accruing on the deposit can be considered only up to that period, moreso, as the bona fides of the respondent are not in doubt. The delay in making the refund of the amount to the applicant, has also been explained in the reply filed by and on behalf of the respondent. The only issue that remains to be decided is the rate of interest to be allowed in this case. Since the respondent charges interest on delayed payments, it is only fair that it should also pay interest on the deposits made by the applicants as in the present case. As we have been consistently following the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s order in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors., reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654, we award interest @ 12% on the deposit made by the applicant. The interest will be payable for the period the amount deposited by the applicant remained with the respondent, to be calculated from the dates, the instalments were paid till 21st November, 1998 when the cheque was sent to the applicant. The exact amount required to be refunded may be determined on the basis of receipts which the applicant will produce and surrender to the respondent. The respondent is directed to comply with the order and file affidavit of compliance within six weeks. Application disposed of.