NARESH CHANDRA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has moved the present application under Sec.12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act) to claim refund of excess service charges recovered by the respondent. He has also charged the respondent with the adoption of and indulgence in unfair/ restrictive trade practices as defined under the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant/ complainant was allotted flat No.4053 in Pocket -IV, Sector-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi at a cost of Rs.6,77,800/- on cash down basis as per allotment letter dated 1.6.1993. The aforementioned letter of allotment inter alia stipulated in Clause 7 that the applicant/ complainant will have to pay service charges at the rate of Rs.6,877.50 per annum till the services of the scheme are handed over to the MCD. It has been stated by the respondent that he accepted these terms and conditions in good faith and complied with them accordingly. Later, however, the applicant discovered that the allottee of a similar flat No.4055 in the same pocket/sector and under the same scheme was required to pay service charges at the rate of Rs.1,007.50 per annum only. The applicant/complainant brought this discrepancy to the notice of the Financial Adviser (Housing) vide letter dated 17th/20th June, 1994. In reply thereto, the respondent furnished a comparative statement giving details of standard rent and service charges pertaining to both the flats namely flat No.4053 of the applicant/complainant and flat No.4055 of Mrs. Vatsala Devi. On further enquiries, the respondent also explained the rationale behind charging differential rate of ground rent and service charges from different allottees.

(2.) In its letter dated 30th January, 1995, the respondent has stated that the ground rent and the service charges levied in respect of the aforementioned two flats are different because of differences in their cost of land. In tthe case of flat No.4053 (the complainant's flat) cost of the land is Rs.2,50,800/- whereas in the case of flat No.4055, the cost of the land is Rs.40,300/-. It has been further stated in the said letter that the difference in the cost of land in the case of the complainant is due to 'out-of-Turn Allotment' (OTA in brief) without registration in the office of the respondent. In the case of the applicant/ complainant, the rate of land prevailing at the time of OTA was taken as the cost of land while in other case of Mrs. Vatsala Devi, who was already registered with the office of the respondent, the land rate in respect of her flat No.4055 was less because it was the land rate prevailing during 1988. It has also been pointed out in the said letter that the ground rent and the service charges are calculated at a uniform rate of 2.5% of the premium of the land and this mode of calculation was followed in both the cases.

(3.) The Notice of Compensation under Sec.12-B of the MRTP Act was issued to the respondent. However, the respondent failed to file its reply despite adequate opportunities given and hence the respondent was set ex parte with liberty to participate in the arguments. Final arguments addressed by Mr. O. P. Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. B. Devasekharan, Advocate for the respondent were heard on 23.5.2000. The synopsis of arguments have also been filed on behalf of both the parties.