ANITA KUMARI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that, though the respondent had assured in the brochure with respect to its scheme in the name and style of "Expandable Housing Scheme, 1995" (the Scheme for convenience) a plot of land admeasuring 63 sq. mtrs. with a house built thereon admeasuring 35 sq. mtrs. against its booking, the respondent has in fact given a house admeasuring about 28 sq. mtrs. on the plot admeasuring the same area. She has, therefore, prayed for allotment of a plot admeasuring 63sq. mtrs. with a constructed area of 35 sq. mtrs. or in the alternative refund of the deposit of Rs. 10,000/ together with interest and costs of litigation.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this complaint may be summarised in a nutshell. THE respondent announced the scheme some time in early 1995. It was a scheme for nearly 8000 built up houses in different localities specified in table 1 of Annexure 1 to the brochure. A copy of the brochure is at serial No. 2 in the list of documents and the parties have relied on this piece of documentary evidence for the purpose of this complaint. THE scheme was open from 24th January 1995 to 2nd March 1995. It appears that the complainant booked one house in the afore said scheme on payment of the required deposit. He was allotted a house in Rohini, Sector 22, Pocket 16, Block PH III. It is the case of the complainant that on inspection of the site it came to her knowledge that the house allotted to her actually admeasured 28 sq. mtrs. as against the assured constructed area of 35 sq. mtrs. and the ultimate land area of 63 sq. mtrs. mentioned in the brochure related to the scheme floated by the respondent. She, therefore, moved this Com mission with her complaint charging the respondent with adoption of both restrictive trade practices and unfair trade practices qua the scheme in question. She has also prayed for allotment of a plot admeasuring 63 sq. mtrs. with a constructed house admeasuring 35 sq. mtrs. or in the alternative the refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 10,000/ with interest and the costs of the litigation.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by the order passed on 15th October 1996: