LAWS(NCD)-2000-10-91

K S DHANRAJ Vs. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On October 23, 2000
K S DHANRAJ Appellant
V/S
MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant applied for a flat in HIG Category in Shatabadi Nagar, Phase-I launched by Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as MDA ). As per the advertisement dated 15th August, 1989 given in the paper 'hindustan Times', the attractive features of the scheme were availability of a house at cheaper rates, location at one hour's drive from Delhi, and special provision for EWS and LIG categories of house at subsidized rates with community facilities. The complainant registered itself for an allotment of a house in category A under the hire purchase plan against 5% reserved quota for Government servants who have attained the age of 50 years. It paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 6.9.1989 after raising it as a loan from the Indian Overseas Bank, J. J. Colony, Naraina, New Delhi. The complainant was informed of allotment of a house No.2/273-B in-Sector 8 of the Shatabadi Nagar Housing Scheme, Phase-I. Thereafter Rs.50,000/-was paid by the complainant on 20.2.1990 as demanded. Despite payment made, the respondent threatened to cancel the allotment for non-payment of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, vide letter dated 7.1.1994, the complainant was informed that as the houses of the category allotted to the complainant could not be constructed due to certain reasons, another flat bearing No. A/45 in Sector 4-B of HIG (I) category has been allotted to it. The offer so made was declined by the applicant and the refund of the amount already deposited with interest was asked to be made. The respondent paid Rs.74,000/- after deducting 20% of the registration amount out of deposit of Rs 80,000/-. This practice of non-handing over the allotted house under a scheme applied for and deduction of 20% of the registration amount is contended to the unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. It is thus prayed that the respondent Authority be directed to cease the aforesaid practice if continued at present and desist from repeating the same in future. In addition, a prayer for interest @ 24% per annum on the total deposits from the date of payment and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss and agony suffered by it is asked for as compensation.

(2.) In reply to the NOE, the respondent attributed the failure to deliver the possession of the specific flat as allotted for non-construction of the category of such plots. This is contended to be for the reasons beyond its control. The allotment of a similar flat in another locality in Shatabadi Nagar Housing Scheme Phase-II, is stated to be an offer of a fair deal on the part of the respondent. In view of the surrender of the house by the complainant, deduction of 20% of the registration amount is stated to be as per the terms and conditions of the brochure to which the complainant is a signatory. In absence of any provision for paying interest on the deposits in case of surrender, no interest is contended to be payable. Similar is the case in regard to amount demanded for mental agony and harassment. The allegations of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent are thus stated to be without any basis.

(3.) After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has or is indulging in trade practices as mentioned in the NOE (2) If the answer to the aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the unfair trade practices are prejudicial to consumer or consumers or public interest (3) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or injury due to unfair trade practices (4) Relief, if any.